HEMANT GOSWAMI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are seized of an intra -court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) MATTER in hand is an offshoot of an infamous "Chandigarh Teachers Recruitment Scam". Finding, that there were mass scale bungling in the selection of teachers, the appellant filed a complaint with the CBI (respondent No.1). CBI held a preliminary inquiry and probed the matter at some length. Eventually, only a report was sent to the Chief Vigilance Officer (Chandigarh), recommending certain corrective steps. However, pursuant to a complaint received by the Chandigarh Police, an FIR was registered in the matter and the same being investigated.

(3.) THE short question, that evolved for consideration before the learned Single Judge was, could the order passed by the Commission be sustained in the wake of the provisions of Section 8(1)(g) and (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act'). On an analysis of the matter, the learned Single Judge was of the view, that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 30.03.2012 in Karamjit Singh's case , CBI had registered an FIR on 24.05.2012, in relation to selection of teachers. The matter was being investigated by the CBI and, therefore, in terms of Section 8(1)(g) and (h) of the Act, the information in relation thereto could not be supplied. However, the report that was sent to the Administration by the CBI, pursuant to the complaint made by the appellant, was directed to be supplied, as the same could not be treated as part of the investigation. The operative part of the said order reads as thus: