CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION D- Wing, 2 nd Floor, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066 PARTIES TO THE CASE: Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000969/SS Appellant : Shri Vinod Kumar Jain Respondent : Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi Date of Hearing : 20.05.2011 Appellant represented by : Shri Prabhat Kumar Respondent represented by : Shri Arun Kumar, Addl. Director, Shri Birender Kumar, Dy. Director, Sh. Veerender Kumar, DG & Shri Sunil Jain, I.O. ORDER BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 1. Date of RTI Application - 23/04/2010 Date of PIO s Reply - 24/05/2010 Date of First Appeal - 21/06/2010
Date of First Appellate Authority s Order - 20/07/2010 2. The Appellant through his RTI Application had sought the information from the Respondent, Central Excise Intelligence, pertaining to the matter of M/s. V.K. Metal Works. The Appellant sought the detail of complete proceedings placed on records of the Subject matter with regard to enquiry in to the Lakhanpur and Bhanuth / Shambhu check posts in J & K and Punjab respectively. 3. The PIO has denied the information to the Appellant by stating that the investigation is pending in the matter with respect to the information as has been sought. The PIO has applied section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 to deny the disclosure of information. The PIO has also relied on earlier decisions of this Commission namely Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/007, CIC/AT/A/2007/00010 and CIC/AT/A/2007/00011, wherein it was held that: the investigation into tax evasion can be said to be over or complete, only after the final adjudication about the liability has been made after the matter has gone all the stages of appeals and revisions as well as a final decision about prosecuting or
not prosecuting that person has been taken by an appropriate competent authority. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the PIO, the appellant went into the appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA has upheld the order of the PIO by giving a sufficiently detailed and reasoned order. DECISION NOTICE: 5. The Commission has carefully considered the submissions of the parties. The primary contention of the Appellant is that the investigation is over and a show cause notice is issued, hence the information cannot be denied under section 8 (1) (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Thus, according to the Appellant, the moment a show cause notice is issued, the investigation is deemed to be complete and the exception under section 8(1) (h) is not attracted. We find no merit in such contention raised by the appellant. On the other hand, we do find that there is substance in the contention of the Respondent. 6. The Commission concurs with the detailed order passed by the FAA of the Respondent and we also confirm our earlier order (supra) passed on this same issue where it was categorically held by one of the Learned Information Commissioners that:
the term investigation used in Section 8(1)(h), in the context of this Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally. We cannot import into RTI Act the technical definition of investigation one finds in Criminal Law. Here, investigation would mean all actions of law enforcement, disciplinary proceedings, enquiries, adjudications and so on. Logically, no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is taken. 7. Thus, Commission sees no reason to interfere with the order passed by the FAA of the Respondent and hence the same is upheld. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sushma Singh Information Commissioner 20.07.2011
Authenticated True Copies K.K. Sharma OSD & Deputy Registrar Name & Address of Parties: Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain, R/o, B 270, Yojana Vihar, Delhi 110 092 The CPIO & Deputy Director, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, West Block VIII, Wing VI, Ist Floor, Sector 1, R.K. Puram, New Delhi The First Appellate Authority & Additional Director, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, West Block VIII, Wing VI, 2 nd Floor, Sector 1, R.K. Puram, New Delhi