के (cid:3)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:18), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/DOREV/A/2024/115748 A Swarnalatha .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO under RTI Department of Revenue (Min. of Finance), O/o. the Competent Authority-(SAFEM-FOP-A & NDPSA), Shastri Bhawan, New Building, 4th Floor, No.-26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai–600006 (Tamil Nadu). ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 30.10.2025 Date of Decision : 30.10.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 24.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 08.01.2024 First appeal filed on : 23.01.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 21.02.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.05.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 24.09.2023 seeking the following information:

“1. Please furnish a copy of the detention order passed against Shri. S.A. Jawersha under COFEPOSA Act, 1974 on which the competent Authority initiated proceeding u/s. 6 of SAFEMA Act, 1976.

2. Please furnish details along with the copies, whether the detention order, i) Was revoked by the advisory board or confirmed by the advisory board or, ii) Whether the High court of madras had set aside the detention order or, dismissed the Habeous Corpus Writ Petition?

3. Please furnish the copies of FIR, final report and judgement, on the ground case in which Shri S.A. Jawersha was detained under COFEPOSA Act, 1974?

4. Please furnish the information, whether the ground case for the detention order was decided as, i) Acquittal or convicted or abated or pending, with relevant dates.

5. The provisions of section 6(3) of The Right to Information Act, the Public Information Officer shell transfer the application or a part to authority concerned with whom such information is available and inform to the applicant.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.01.2024 stating as under:

“The information requested by you has no relationship to any public interest or activity or no justification of any larger public interest thereby attracting exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the information sought for is not disclosed.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.01.2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 21.02.2024, held as under.

“The FAA vide proceedings u/s 19(1), reviewed all your queries and noted the following.

Question no.1 & 2: The reply given by the CPIO is upheld, as the information sought is barred under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI.

Question no. 3 to 5: The questions pertain specifically to matters concerning COFEPOSA (Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act) Wing, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, which is covered under section 24, Second Schedule of Right to Information Act, 2005.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Advocate Felix Parthiban, representative of the Appellant attended the hearing through VC.

Respondent: Shri Shyamlal Nath, CPIO-cum-Inspecting Officer, attended the hearing through VC.

6. The Appellant representative of the Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. While explaining his locus, the representative of the Appellant apprised the Bench that the Appellant has purchased the averred property from Shri SA Jawersha and related matter is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

7. The Respondent submitted that first the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of third party which is exempted from disclo