9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Central Revenue Control Laboratories during the last one year, numbers of samples received by the Central Revenue Control Laboratories during the period of 2016 and 2017 till 31.03.2017 and issues related thereto. The CPIO vide letter dated 28.04.2017 provided information to the Appellant after receiving from the concerned section of CRCL. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 30.05.2017 stated that with regard to point no. A (ii) and (iii) of the RTI application was incomplete, since it was yet to be submitted before the Hon'ble High Court, hence the reply was considered to be null and void, and for other point concurred with the response of the CPIO. HEARING: F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortunate that the CPIO and the FAA had dealt with the issue very casually. The Commission observed that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, no specific exemption is codified which allows non-disclosure of information on the ground that the matter on which information is sought is sub-judice. In this context, the following extract of the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain in W.P. (C) 14120/ 2009 dated 23.09.2010 can be cited: "5...........The matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act." The Commission in its decision in Mr. Ashu v. CPIO/ Sr. Supdt of Posts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejecting a demand for disclosure. Hence, disclosing information on matters which are sub- judice cannot constitute contempt of Court, unless there is a specific order forbidding its disclosure. The mere claim that a matter is sub- judice cannot be used as a reason for denying information under the RTI Act. In view of the same, the Commission rules that the denial of information by the PIO on queries 36 and 38 of the RTI application is legally untenable. Moreover, in view of the observations laid down above, the decisions cited by the PIO are not relevant to the present matter." The Commission in the matter of Shri Nanak Chand Arora v. State Bank of India in CIC/MA/A/2006/00018 dated 30.06.2006 had also held as under: "10 The CPIO and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
