L R Sudheendra Rao v. CBI

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.12.2019 seeking the following information:

"One Mr. P.G. Krishnamurthy, Dy. Superintending Engineer, Archaeological Survey of India, Bhubaneshwar was convicted for one year RI and Rs. 1,000/- fine by the CBI Special Court through its judgement dated 31.7.2006 in T.R. No. 31/2002. Shri P.G. Krishnamurthy has filed an application for suspension of sentence in TR No. 31 of 2002 and filed an appeal in the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack challenging the orders of the CBI Special court vide CRIA 324/2006.

(a) Whether Shri P.G. Krishnamurthy was granted bail against the conviction.

(b) If yes, a copy of the bail orders may please be supplied.

(c) Whether the CBI had objected for granting of bail? If yes, copy of the objection filed by the CBI may please be supplied.

(d) Whether the CBI had objected for suspension of Conviction in T.R. No. 31 of 2002?

(e) Copy of the objection may please be supplied.

(f) Whether the court has ordered for suspension of conviction?

(g) Copy of the order may please be supplied. During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, the Government of India has paid the accused/offender Rs. 52,27,721/- upto November, 2018 as subsistence allowance, etc. Due to non-pursuance of the appeal by the CBI in the High Court. Whether the CBI has insisted its Advocate to pursue the appeal for quick disposal in the High Court of Orissa. If yes, a copy of the latest reminder to the Advocate may please be furnished."

The CPIO replied to the appellant on 23.12.2019 stating that information cannot be provided as per the Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.01.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

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

2

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Baidyanath Samal, Dy. Supdt. of Police & Rep. of CPIO present through audio conference.

The CPIO submitted that the information sought for cannot be provided to the Appellant as it pertains to a third party.

Decision:

The current milieu of the COVID pandemic has necessitated the Commission to take some extraordinary steps in the disposal of cases to avoid further backlog and delays subverting the very purpose of RTI Act which includes inter alia hearing cases through audio conferencing. The instant case being one such instance where even so the Appellant could not be heard for want of contact details, the Commission is constrained to decide the case based on the strength of the material on record

The Commission takes grave exception to the gross non-application of mind of the CPIO evinced in the instant matter as the information sought for in the RTI Application clearly pertained to allegations of corruption yet the exemption of Section 24 of the RTI Act was invoked in the CPIO's reply. Nonetheless, concededly the information sought for in the RTI Application pertains to a third party and disclosure of the same stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information"

envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; GirishRamchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India &Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.

3

It is also pertinent to note that as such the information sought for in the RTI Application does not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the queries are speculative in nature.

Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Saroj Punhani (सरोजपनुहािनुुु )

Information Commissioner (सचूनाआय ुू ुू ुू ु ) Authenticated true copy

(अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित)

(C.A. Joseph)

Dy. Registrar

011-26179548/ ca.joseph@nic.in

सी. ए. जोसफे, उप-पंजीयक

दनांक /

4