Read Judgment - Vigilance Report Can't Be Given Under RTI: Kerala HC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/11TH BHADRA, 1937
Crl.MC.No. 3060 of 2015 ()
---------------------------
VC 04/14/SCK - VACB, KOZHIKODE
--------------
PETITIONER :
---------------------
A.M.IBRAHIM
S/O. ABDU RAHIMAN, AGED 71 YEARS
33/625, BABY NIVAS
BIG BAZAR, PERINTHALMANNA
*ADDL. P2 IMPLEADED
----------------------------------
*ADDL.P2. BABY FIROZ
D/O. A.M.IBRAHIM
AGED 43 YEARS, 33/625, BABY NIVAS
BIG BAZAR, PERINTHALMANNA
PIN - 679 322.
*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.P2 AS PER ORDER DATED 17/6/2015 IN
CRL.MA NO. 5716/15 IN CRL.MC. NO. 3060/15.
BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL
THONDAYAD, CHEVARAMBALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 017
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
Crl.MC.No. 3060 of 2015 ()
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :
-------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 9.12.2014 FILED ON BEHALF OF
THE RESPONDENT IN CRL.MC NO.6828/2014 ALONG WITH THE
DOCUMENT PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE MEMO.
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22.12.2014
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.1.2015 IN
WP(C) NO. 1602/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 24.1.2015
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT.
ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. E-403/14/SCK DATED 28.1.2015
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.6.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
ANNEXURE A8: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.6.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL,
KOZHIKODE UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
................................................................
CRL. M.C. No.3060 of 2015
...............................................................
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2015
O R D E R
A vigilance enquiry is going on against the
disproportionate assets of one Khamarudheen, who is the
husband of the additional 2nd petitioner. The petitioner
wanted a copy of the vigilance enquiry report.
2. According to the petitioner, a copy of the vigilance
enquiry report was issued to another person and therefore,
there is nothing wrong on the part of the Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Bureau in issuing a copy of the report of the
vigilance enquiry to the petitioner also.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Special Cell, Kozhikode has reported
that if a copy of the vigilance enquiry report is issued as
sought for, it would impede the investigation process. It has
been further reported that by mistake, a copy of the report
CRL.M.C.No. 3060 of 2015
-: 2 :-
happened to be issued to one Gokul Prasad by the State
Public Information Officer and Manager of Directorate VACB,
Thiruvananthapuram and when that fact came to the notice
of the Director Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, the
said officer was warned.
4. On hearing either side and on going through the
facts of this case, this Court is of the view that as per
Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, copy of such
proceedings need not be issued. The contention resorted to
by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
corruption Bureau, as aforesaid, seems to be correct.
Matters being so, this Crl.M.C. is devoid of merits, and it is
only to be dismissed, and I do so.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed.
Sd/-
B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.
ul/-
// True Copy //
PS to Judge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/11TH BHADRA, 1937
Crl.MC.No. 3060 of 2015 ()
---------------------------
VC 04/14/SCK - VACB, KOZHIKODE
--------------
PETITIONER :
---------------------
A.M.IBRAHIM
S/O. ABDU RAHIMAN, AGED 71 YEARS
33/625, BABY NIVAS
BIG BAZAR, PERINTHALMANNA
*ADDL. P2 IMPLEADED
----------------------------------
*ADDL.P2. BABY FIROZ
D/O. A.M.IBRAHIM
AGED 43 YEARS, 33/625, BABY NIVAS
BIG BAZAR, PERINTHALMANNA
PIN - 679 322.
*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.P2 AS PER ORDER DATED 17/6/2015 IN
CRL.MA NO. 5716/15 IN CRL.MC. NO. 3060/15.
BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL
THONDAYAD, CHEVARAMBALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 017
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
Crl.MC.No. 3060 of 2015 ()
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :
-------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 9.12.2014 FILED ON BEHALF OF
THE RESPONDENT IN CRL.MC NO.6828/2014 ALONG WITH THE
DOCUMENT PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE MEMO.
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22.12.2014
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.1.2015 IN
WP(C) NO. 1602/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 24.1.2015
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT.
ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. E-403/14/SCK DATED 28.1.2015
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.6.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
ANNEXURE A8: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.6.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL,
KOZHIKODE UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
................................................................
CRL. M.C. No.3060 of 2015
...............................................................
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2015
O R D E R
A vigilance enquiry is going on against the
disproportionate assets of one Khamarudheen, who is the
husband of the additional 2nd petitioner. The petitioner
wanted a copy of the vigilance enquiry report.
2. According to the petitioner, a copy of the vigilance
enquiry report was issued to another person and therefore,
there is nothing wrong on the part of the Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Bureau in issuing a copy of the report of the
vigilance enquiry to the petitioner also.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Special Cell, Kozhikode has reported
that if a copy of the vigilance enquiry report is issued as
sought for, it would impede the investigation process. It has
been further reported that by mistake, a copy of the report
CRL.M.C.No. 3060 of 2015
-: 2 :-
happened to be issued to one Gokul Prasad by the State
Public Information Officer and Manager of Directorate VACB,
Thiruvananthapuram and when that fact came to the notice
of the Director Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, the
said officer was warned.
4. On hearing either side and on going through the
facts of this case, this Court is of the view that as per
Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, copy of such
proceedings need not be issued. The contention resorted to
by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
corruption Bureau, as aforesaid, seems to be correct.
Matters being so, this Crl.M.C. is devoid of merits, and it is
only to be dismissed, and I do so.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed.
Sd/-
B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.
ul/-
// True Copy //
PS to Judge