DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioner assails an order by the second appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had sought three information as contained in the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He refers to such application. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to the information sought for by such writing. The appeal carried from the order of refusal was also dismissed erroneously. The order passed in the second appeal is impugned herein. The second appellate authority has rejected the request for the information as contained in the first request on the ground of the prohibition engrafted in Section 8(1)(h) of the Act of 2005. He submits that, such provisions are not attracted to the facts of the present case, as an accused in a criminal proceeding, the petitioner is entitled, to the complaint lodged against him along with the other materials supporting such complaint, if any, that were made at the time of writing of the complaint. He also submits that, the Central Bureau of Investigation had conducted an enquiry and had submitted a report. The petitioner is entitled to copy of such report also.
(3.) The Vigilance Commission as well as the Central Information Commission is represented. Learned advocate for the respondents submits that, the Central Vigilance Commission is not a necessary party in the present case. So far as the Central Information Commission is concerned, they would abide by the decision of the Court.;