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/DIREN/A/2024/101066 Mahavir Singh .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zonal Office, Bank Road, Chandpura Place, Patna – 800001 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date of Decision : 25.04.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 11.10.2023 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2023 First appeal filed on : 23.11.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 04.12.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.01.2024 Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 11.10.2023 seeking the following information:

“मेरे (cid:5)वारा द(cid:9)॰ 05.09.2023 को (cid:19)दये गए आवेदन िजसक(cid:28) छाया(cid:30)ती इस आवेदन के साथ संलगन है पर (या कायव) ाह(cid:9) क(cid:28) गयी उसक(cid:28) स+या,पत कॉपी उपल.ध करायी जाये।”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.11.2023 stating as under:

“इस संदभ ) म2, आवदे नकता ) को यह स4ूचत 6कया जाता है 6क 7नदेशालय को सचू ना का अ4धकार अ4ध7नयम, 2005 क(cid:28) धारा 24, अनसु चू ी ॥ के तहत म(ु त रखा गया है, अतः वा7ंछत सूचना (cid:30)दान नह(cid:9)ं क(cid:28) जा

सकती है”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 04.12.2023, held as under.

“In view of Section 24 of the RTI Act and also in view of the fact that no corruption or human rights issue pertaining to Enforcement Directorate has been raised in the subject RTI application, I find that CPIO's decision to reject the applicant's RTI application, is in order and the said order is within the scope of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 read with schedule II of RTI Act which was already sent by this office vide communication dated 09.11.2023. Hence, I, hereby, uphold the Order of the Central Public Information Officer dated 09.11.2023.”

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

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri Siddharth Jain, Deputy Director and CPIO present through Video-Conference.

Respondent submitted that they have categorically informed the Appellant that Directorate of Enforcement being exempt organisation under Section 24 of the RTI Act cannot part with the information as sought by him in his above- mentioned RTI application. They have further informed that the investigation in the matter is still under process, therefore, the information sought is also exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no scope of any relief and agrees with the reply of CPIO that the Respondent Public Authority is an exempt organization as per Second Schedule of Section 24 of the RTI Act. Further, the material on record does not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter, for which reason, the Commission finds no reason to invoke the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to allow the disclosure of information, if any. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provision of Section 24(1) is reproduced as under:

“24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.—

(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:…”

Merely the fact that the Appellant has alleged corruption charges against some third party does not make the exempted organisation liable to furnish the information. The Commission, furthermore, observes that this exemption is available only in case