Central Information CommissionMr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 July, 2011CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                               Club Building (Near Post Office)
                             Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                    Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                     Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000293/SG/12346Adjunct and
                                                     CIC/SM/C/2011/000783/SG/13313Penalty
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant              :                    Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi,
                                            Sr. Correspondent, Live India,
                                            Premnath Motors Complex,
                                            1, Mandir Marg,
                                            New Delhi- 110001.

Respondent            :                     Mr. Anil Palta
                                            CPIO & DIG of BS&FC Delhi
                                            Central Bureau of Investigation
                                            5th Floor, CBI HQ, Lodhi Road,
                                            New Delhi

RTI application       :       24/09 /2010 (two RTI applications were filed)
PIO reply             :       18/10/2010
First appeal          :       22/10/2010
FAA order             :       19/11/2010
Second appeal          :      20/12/2010

Information sought:RTI application 1:I am specifically looking for a copy each of the legal opinions expressed by the agency's director's of
prosecution concerning the bank fraud cases filed by the agency against Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal.
Information sought: A copy each of the legal opinion (full report) given by the concerned director/s of
prosecution (DOP) after the discharge of Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal from the two cases flied against him by
the agency in connection with alleged bank fraud.RTI application 2:I am specifically looking for information on the two bank fraud cases filed by the agency wherein Mr.
Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused by the agency: however, he was later exonerated by the concerned
courts.1.      A copy each of the charge sheets wherein Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused by the
        agency in connection with the bank fraud case/s.2.      A copy each of the judgments delivered by the concerned court/s that exonerated Mr. Sant Singh
        Chatwal in both the cases filed by CBI.3.      A copy each of the recommendations made by the agency's then Special Public Prosecutor/s SSPs
        DIGs and any other RBI official (on deputation with the agency) dealing with either of the cases
        after Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal was exonerated.4.      A copy of the legal opinion of the then Director/s of Prosecution (DoP) in both the cases after he
        was exonerated by the concerned courts.5.      A copy the final orders passed/recommendations made by the former and present directors CBI in
        connection with either of the cases wherein Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused by the
        agency.Page 1 of 8PIO's reply:For both RTI applications:2. With regard to information sought under reference, it is informed that. apart from the two cases which
were disposed off, two more cases, which are inter connected with the cases already disposed off, are
pending under trial before the same court. Hence, the information cannot be supplied to you and
exemption undersection 8(1)(h)of the RTI Act is claimed.Grounds for First appeal:Wrong denial of information.FAA order:The undersigned upholds the grounds on which CPIO, BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi denied to provide the
information sought by the appellant as it fallsu/s 8(1)(h)of RTI Act,2005 because two more cases which
are connected with the already disposed of ones are pending trial before the same court.Grounds for Second appeal:The case is very old and admittedly there is no investigation underway. It is clear from the response of the
CPIO, BS&FC. CBI also, "With regard to information sought under reference, it is informed that, apart
from the two cases which were disposed off, two more cases, which are interconnected with the cases
already disposed off, are pending under trial before the same court. Hence the information can not be
supplied to you and exemption undersection 8 (1) (h)of the RTI Act is claimed." It reads 'two more
cases.., are pending under trial before the same court." It did not say that the investigation is under way.
A charge sheet by an investigative agency is a public document and same is true with orders of a court of
law. I believe, if CBI wanted to uphold the spirit of theRTI Actand not suppress the information
concerning a high profile NRI hotelier, ideally it should have provided me the copies of charge sheets and
court orders regarding both the cases without any delay.In this context, it is my view, that the agency has deliberately and wrong invoked thesection 8 (1)h of theRTI Actas a pretext to deny me the information about a high profile non resident Indian.Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 11 May 2011:The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi,
Respondent: Mr. S. V. Raman, Superintendent of Police on behalf of Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & HOB of
               BS&FC Delhi;"The PIO has refused to give the information claiming exemptions underSection 8(1)(h)of the
RTI Act. A very peculiar claim was made that though the two cases for which information was being
sought have been discharged, there are two other fraud cases which are being pursued in which some of
the Bank Officers are the same. No evidence has been given as to how giving the information would
impede the prosecution of offenders.Section 8(1) (h)of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of, "information
which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders." No claim
has been made that any investigation is continuing, and the fact that some bank officers are being
prosecuted in two other matters cannot justify refusal to give information in the matters relating to Mr.
Sant Singh Chatwal. The Respondent states that some of the documents relied in both the case are the
same. The Appellant has not sought documents relating to the case directly. The respondent was asked if
documents sought at query-01 and 02 were not public documents. The Respondent agrees that what has
been sought in query-01 & 02 are public documents.Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens and denial of information has to be based on
definite reasons which can be explained.Page 2 of 8Justice Ravindra Bhat has held in Bhagatsingh vs. CIC WP (c ) no. 3114/2007- "13. Access to
information, underSection 3of the Act, is the rule and exemptions underSection 8, the exception.Section
8being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be
interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. UnderSection 8, exemption from releasing
information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders.It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the
information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release
of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the
opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this
consideration,Section 8(1)(h)and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands
for information.14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal
interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined inSection 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on
the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in
their terms; there is some authority supporting this view ( SeeNathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta2005 (2)
SCC 201;B. R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu2001 (7) SCC 231 and V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy
1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a
judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted."Frivolously refusing information by claiming one of the 10 exemptions inSection 8(1)without giving
explanation is an unwarranted denial of citizens' fundamental right. No proper explanation has been given
for denying the information."Commission's Decision dated 11 May 2011:The Appeal was allowed."The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before
30 May 2011.The issue before the Commission is of denying the information by the PIO without any justification
in the law.From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information. It
appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions ofSection 20 (1). A showcause notice is being
issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should
not be levied on him.The PIO Mr. Anil Palta will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 09 June 2011
at 4.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
as mandated underSection 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant."Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 09 June 2011:The following were present:Appellant: Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi;Respondent: Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & DIG of BS&FC Delhi;"The respondent has given a written submission in which he admits that denying the charge sheet
and the copies of the judgment was an error of judgment and this information has now been provided to
the Appellant. The Appellant acknowledges that he received these. As regards the following three:(i) "A copy of each of the recommendations made by the agency's then Special Public Prosecutor/s,
           SSPs, DIGs and any other RBI official (on deputation with the agency) dealing with either of
           the cases after Shri Sant Singh Chatwal was exonerated.Page 3 of 8(ii)     A copy of the legal opinion of the then Director/s of Prosecution (DoP) in both the cases after
            he was exonerated by the concerned court/s.(iii)  A cop of the final orders passed/recommendations made by the former and present Directors of
            CBI in connection with either of the cases wherein Shri Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused
            by the agency."The respondent states that CBI intends challenging the decision of the Commission in a writ before the
High Court. The Commission sought the view of the respondent on whether a statutory authority's order
could be defied without the valid stay obtained from the appropriate forum. The Commission would like
CBI to give its opinion on this matter before it takes a decision. It is felt that when public authorities or
citizens do not implement orders given by the Statutory Authority without obtaining a stay as per the law
this could create a very unhealthy situation. The respondent states that he would like to consult the
prosecution cell of CBI before answering the query of the Commission.The appellant has given his submissions on 06/06/2011 in which he has stated that the CBI has not
followed the decision of the Commission. The appellant has pointed out the following:1-     As perSection 7(6)of the RTI Act (which was mentioned in the order given by the
           Commission) the PIO should have provided the information free of cost since the information
           was being provided after the period of 30 days. Instead he was asked to pay Rs.286/- to get
           part of the information which CBI was willing to give.
    2-     The Appellant states that he believes that since there was no stay on the order of the
           Commission the CBI should have implemented.3-     The Appellant believes that there must be some pressure on CBI because of which the
           Commission's order was not implemented.The respondent states that once the information is parted with CBI would not be able to retrieve it and
CBI believes that the decision of the Commission must be challenged in a writ since the information is
covered underSection 8(1)(h)of the RTI Act.The Commission is adjourning the matter until 29 June 2011. The PIO will then present his argument on
whether the actions of CBI in not implementing the order is legally justifiable. The matter will be held on
29 June 2011 at 04.30PM."Adjunct Decision dated 09 June 2011:"The PIO will refund the amount of Rs.286/- charged illegally, to the Appellant before 15 June 2011.
The Commission also directs the PIO Mr. Anil Palta to present himself before the Commission on
29 June 2011 at 04.30PM to present his argument before the Commission."Relevant Facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on 29 June 2011:The following were present:Appellant: Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi;Respondent: Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & DIG of BS & FC, CBI.The Appellant gave written submissions to the Commission. The Appellant has submitted inter alia that
he had filed two RTI applications (including the one in the instant matter) seeking certain information. He
was a given a reply denying the information sought in both applications. However, the PIO clarified only
subsequently that the said reply was in response to both RTI applications. The Appellant has also
submitted that the PIO had defied the Commission's order dated 11/05/2011 by not fully complying with
the same and providing incomplete information vide letter dated 30/05/2011. The Appellant further
argued that the PIO returned the sum of Rs. 286 by cash to his cousin instead of cheque, as verbally
instructed by the Commission at the hearing held on 09/06/2011. Moreover, he was not provided a copy
of any document which showed that the amount of Rs. 286 given to him was booked as a refund by CBI.
In view of the same, the Commission hereby directs Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO to provide an attestedPage 4 of 8photocopy of the document/ voucher showing that the payment of Rs. 286 in cash to the Appellant
was booked as a refund. This should be sent to the Appellant before 25 July 2011.The PIO submitted in writing to the Commission that a Writ Petition bearing number 4506 of 2011 had
been filed in Delhi High Court in the instant matter, praying for stay/ setting aside the Commission's order
dated 11/05/2011. The matter was heard on 29/06/2011 and M. L. Mehta, J. stayed the operation of the
order dated 11/05/2011 and listed the matter for 28/07/2011 for further hearing. The Commission asked
the PIO whether the Commission's order,- which is a statutory authority,- could be defied without a valid
stay obtained from the appropriate forum. The Commission asked the PIO if he had any answer to this
query which had been posed to him during the hearing on 09/06/2011. The Commission also asked the
PIO why it should not penalize him underSection 20(1)of the RTI Act for defying the order of the
Commission to provide information, from 01/06/2011 to 28/06/2011 without any legally valid stay on the
Commission's order.The PIO stated that the Respondent- public authority had intended to file a writ petition challenging the
order of the Commission. However, due to departmental procedures and administrative hurdles/
exigencies, the writ petition could not be filed (and consequently, a stay order could not be obtained)
before the compliance date mentioned in the Commission's order. The PIO also stated that the
Commission should give a longer compliance date in its orders keeping departmental requirements and
administrative hurdles/ exigencies in mind. If the same would have been done in the instant case, it is
likely the Respondent- public authority would have been able to obtain a stay on the Commission's order.It is pertinent to mention that the Commission received a letter dated 06/06/2011 from the Appellant
alleging that the order of the Commission dated 11/05/2011 had not been complied with and the
information provided by the PIO vide letter dated 30/05/2011 was incomplete. The Commission registered
the same as a Complaint underSection 18of the RTI Act bearing Complaint No.
CIC/SM/C/2011/000783/SG. The Commission decided to initiate an enquiry underSection 18(2)of the
RTI Act and by notice dated 23/06/2011 directed the PIO to appear before the Commission on
29/06/2011.After hearing the arguments and perusing the submissions of the parties, the Commission reserved the
order in CIC/SM/C/2011/000783/SG at the hearing held on 29/06/2011.The Commission was provided a copy of the stay order dated 29/06/2011 on 05/07/2011. On perusal of
the same, the Commission noted that its order dated 11/05/2011 was stayed till the next date of hearing. In
view of the same, the Commission is not taking any further action in Appeal No.
CIC/SM/A/2011/000293/SG.Decision announced in Complaint CIC/SM/C/2011/000783/SG on July 7, 2011:Section 20 (1)of the RTI Act states:"20. Penalties.- Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
   Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the
   opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as
   the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for
   information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) ofsection 7or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect,
   incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the
   request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of
   two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so
   however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees:Page 5 of 8Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer,
   as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is
   imposed on him:Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be
   on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
   may be."From a plain reading ofSection 20(1)of the RTI Act, it appears that the Commission, at the time of
deciding any Complaint or Appeal, must impose a penalty in the following circumstances:1)     Refusal to receive an application for information.
2)     Not furnishing information within the time specified underSection 7(1)of the RTI Act.
3)     Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete ormisleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request.4)     Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.All the above are prefaced by the phrase, "without reasonable cause".Therefore, if complete information is not furnished without any reasonable cause, the Commission, at the
time of deciding any Complaint or Appeal is duty bound to levy a penalty at the rate of Rs. 250 each day
till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there is no reasonable cause for the
delay in providing the information, it has to impose a penalty at the rate specified inSection 20(1)of the
RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. This principle has been relied on by Ravindra Bhat,
J. of the High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman v. CIC in C.W.P. 3845 of 2007 decided on 28/04/2009.
Moreover, as perSection 20(1)of the RTI Act, the PIO shall have to discharge the burden of proving that
he acted reasonably and diligently.In the instant case, the order of the Commission dated 11/05/2011 clearly stipulated the date i.e.
30/05/2011 within which the complete information was required to be provided to the Complainant.
However, despite its clear order, the Commission noted that the PIO did not provide the complete
information to the Appellant within the said date. Stay on the Commission's order dated 11/05/2011 was
obtained only on 29/06/2011. Given the same, it prima facie appears that the PIO has flouted the order of
the Commission and not provided the information from the period 01/06/2011 to 28/06/2011.As mentioned above, the Commission asked the PIO whether the order of a statutory authority could be
defied without a valid stay obtained from the appropriate forum. The Commission had raised the same
issue with the PIO at the hearing held on 09/06/2011. The PIO had no written submissions in this matter.
He stated that due to departmental procedures and administrative hurdles/ exigencies, the writ petition
could not be filed (and consequently, a stay order could not be obtained) before the compliance date
mentioned in the Commission's order. The PIO also argued that he could not be held responsible for the
procedures and delays involved in getting the requisite permissions to file a writ petition in the High
Court. He submitted that the Commission should give a longer compliance date in its orders keeping
departmental requirements and administrative hurdles/ exigencies in mind. If the same would have been
done in the instant case, it is likely the Respondent- public authority would have been able to obtain a stay
on the Commission's order. The PIO felt that once he informed the Commission at the hearing held on
09/06/2011 that the Respondent- public authority intended to challenge the decision, the Commission
must not insist on its order being implemented.The Commission is not satisfied with the submissions of the PIO. The PIO is required to comply with the
order of the Commission, unless a stay has been obtained on such order within the time limit mentioned in
the order. Departmental procedures and administrative hurdles/ exigencies cannot be used as an excuse for
disobeying the order of a statutory authority and consequently denying the citizen's fundamental right to
information. At the very least the PIO should have approached the Commission before 30/05/2011 andPage 6 of 8requested for an extension in time giving reasons. Even at the hearing held on 09/06/2011, the PIO was
given additional time to appear again on 29/06/2011 to give legal arguments as to whether the order of a
statutory authority could be defied without a valid stay obtained from the appropriate forum. At the
hearing held on 29/06/2011, the PIO merely referred to the stay order and did not give any justification for
not complying with the order of the Commission before 30/05/2011.In this regard, the Commission would like to place reliance on certain pronouncements of the Supreme
Court of India.InPrithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Appeal (Civil) No.5024 of 2000, the
Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 24/08/2004 observed as follows:"If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules
   or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the
   Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or
   wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has
   to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While
   dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-
   compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or
   what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order.It cannot test correctness or
   otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be
   exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt
   proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible." (Emphasis added)

Further, inPrakash Narain Sharma v. Burma Shell Cooperative HousingAIR 2002 SC 3062, the
Supreme Court of India has observed that a judicial order, not invalid on its face, must be given effect
entailing all consequences, till it is declared void in a duly constituted judicial proceedings.Reliance may
also be placed on the observations of S.N. Variava, J. inGhaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir
Singh(2004)- (002)- CPJ- 0012- SC wherein he stated that unless there is a stay obtained from a higher
forum, the mere fact of filing an appeal or revision will not entitle a person who is required to pay the
penalty to not comply with the order of the lower forum. Even though the person may have filed an appeal
or revision, if no stay is obtained or if stay is refused, the order must be complied with. In such cases, the
higher forum should, before entertaining such appeal or revision, ensure that the order of the lower forum
is first complied with. In the present case, the PIO had not even filed for a stay of the Commission's order.From the PIO's submissions, it appears that a statutory body such as the Commission is required to
provide a compliance date long enough so that the PIO can obtain a stay on the Commission's order. This
submission is not only unreasonable but also appears to be preposterous. Given that the Parliament itself
mandated that information in relation to a RTI application must be provided within 30 days, it would be
extremely absurd to expect the Commission to provide a compliance date of over 30 days. This is more so
as the Commission is a second appellate authority which decides matters where delay in providing
information has already ensued. The contention of the PIO is not acceptable to the Commission. It is
completely wrong to expect that all statutory and judicial orders must take into account the delays of
various organizations in deciding whether they wish to follow an order or not. All agencies have to gear
themselves to challenge orders within the time in which an order has to implemented. If they fail to obtain
a vacation or stay on a legally valid order, they must comply.If individuals or organizations do not follow orders of statutory authorities, it would lead to complete
anarchy. The lawlaid down bythe Supreme Court of India, as described above, is the law of the land and
must be abided by all. The CBI is not above this law and in the absence of a stay, should have complied
with the order of the Commission. Given that CBI is the premier investigation and law enforcement
agency of the country, it is certainly expected of its officers to behave responsibly and abide by the
mandatelaid down bythe Supreme Court of India. This may be contrasted to a situation when an order is
promulgated underSection 144of the IPC prohibiting citizens from demonstrating at Jantar Mantar orPage 7 of 8Ram Lila Grounds. In such a situation the citizens are expected to abide by this and bear the
consequences, if they fail to do so. They cannot disobey the order on the basis that a writ petition is
proposed to be filed before the appropriate forum. If citizens were to disobey the prohibitory orders they
would be arrested. This elementary principle of abiding by orders which have been given by statutory
authorities or Courts cannot be defied by anyone. Just as Citizens are expected to follow this, government
agencies and their officers are equally bound to abide by all orders which have the sanction of law.
Without this discipline, no rule of law can prevail. And if a police agency cannot follow this simple
principle, it loses the moral authority to ask citizens to abide by its orders.The PIO's action is in clear violation of the principleslaid down bythe Supreme Court of India. The stay
has been obtained on the order of the Commission dated 11/05/2011 only on 29/06/2011, whereas the PIO
was required to comply with the order of the Commission before 30/05/2010. Since the PIO has failed to
comply with the order of the Commission, without a valid stay, he is liable to be penalized underSection
20(1)of the RTI Act for the period between 01/06/2011 to 28/06/2011. Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & DIG of
BS & FC, CBI has given no reasonable cause for not providing information for 28 days, before a valid
stay was obtained on the Commission's order. Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. Anil
Palta, CPIO & DIG of BS & FC, CBI for not providing the information from 01/06/2011 to 28/06/2011,
i.e. for a period of 28 days, the Commission imposes a penalty on Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & DIG of BS &
FC, CBI underSection 20(1)of the RTI Act at the rate of Rs. 250 per day of delay, i.e. 28 X 250 = Rs.
7000/-.The Director, CBI is directed to recover the amount of Rs. 7,000/- from the salary of Mr.
Anil Palta and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of the
Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj
K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information
Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066. The amount may
be deducted at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month every month from the salary of Mr. Anil
Palta and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from August 2011. The total amount
of Rs. 7,000/- will be remitted by 10th of September, 2011.Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as perSection 7(6)of RTI Act.Shailesh Gandhi
                                                                                                      Information Commissioner
                                                                                                                    July 7, 2011


(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SG)

CC:       Mr. Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar,
          Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary,
          Central Information Commission,
          2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
          New Delhi - 110066

          Director, CBI,
          5th Floor, CBI HQ,
          Lodhi Road, New DelhiPage 8 of 8