के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई निल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/GSIND/A/2024/653665 Vishnu Kumar Singh .….अपीलक VERSUS बनाम CPIO, Central Headquarters, Geological Survey of India, 27, J L Nehru Road, Kolkata- 700016 ….प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date of Decision : 27.01.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 16.04.2024 CPIO replied on : 07.05.2024 First appeal filed on : 17.10.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : N.A.

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2024 seeking the following information:

“Kindly provide details of departmental proceedings (both administrative and vigilance) pending on vishnu Kumar Singh Geologist Southern region Hyderabad 500068.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.05.2024 and denied the request for information under Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

3. Aggrieved by the denial of request from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.10.2024. The FAA’s order is not available on record.

4. Challenging the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Not present.

5. Written statements filed by the parties are taken on record.

6. Both the parties remained absent during hearing despite service.

7. However, a substantial time was already elapsed during pendency and listing of this Second Appeal, therefore, instead of prolonging the matter further, the Commission deems it fit to decide the instant Appeal on merits based on the documents available on record.

Decision:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records observes that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was denial of his request for information under Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act.

9. Perusal of the records further revealed that CPIO had denied the Appellant’s request of information under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act without giving any proper justification in this regard. Moreover, the CPIO neither appeared during hearing to discharge his onus for denial of information as per Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005 nor filed any written statement to this effect.

10. The Commission noted with concern that plain reading of section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, states that anything which would hamper and interfere with procedure followed in the investigation and have the effect to hold back the progress of investigation, apprehension of offenders or prosecution of offenders. However, the impediment, if alleged, must be actual and not to make a belief and a cover-up to deny information.

11. The Commission reply on a judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of B.S. Mathur vs. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court, (2011) 125 DRJ 508, where it was held:

19. ……The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by

the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation. Even if one went by the interpretation placed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 793

Click Here to Read the rest of this document