Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/000608-BJ. Case: C. Jayadewa Jayawardana Vs The CPIO & ITO (Extension). Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/000608-BJ |
| Judges | Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 3, 8, 8(1)(h) |
| Judgement Date | March 16, 2017 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner FACTS: 1. The appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding copy of all orders/penalty passed on the basis of his complaint and vital evidences provided by him against the Mohabodhi Society of India, as he was a party to the whole matter and the complaints filed thereon etc. 2. The CPIO, O/o the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(4), Kolkata vide its letter dated 27.07.2015 stated that the information sought related to a third party who had conveyed its strong objection to its disclosure. It was further stated that such disclosure would amount to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the Society and it was barred by the Act itself. 3. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, he approached to the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 09.10.2015, concurred with the reply of the CPIO and referred to the Commission's orders in Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2009/000203 & CIC/WB/A/2010/00314 & 315 dated 06.09.2010 wherein it was held that information need not be provided where investigation was under progress following the provision of section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, etc. In its support, the judgment of CIC in the case of Mrs. Durgesh Kumari vide decision No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000685 dated 26.08.2011 was cited. HEARING: Facts emerging during the hearing: The following were present: Appellant: Mr. C. Jayadewa Jayawardana (M:09831529452) alongwith Mr. Anurag Bagaria (Advocate) (M:9830021416) through VC; Respondent: Absent; 4. The respondent remained absent despite prior intimation. However, in their written submission dated 15.03.2017, he inter-alia excused from personal appearance. The appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the investigation in the concerned matter was over and an order was passed by the Investigation Officer. He further explained that the assessment order sought by him was an order passed by a quasi judicial body which should be disclosed in public domain since it was a public document. He further stated that once the matter was finalized, a copy of the order should be provided and displayed on the website even though... |
To continue reading
Request your trial