ARUN PALLI, J. - (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. The appellant sought certain documents along with a complete information, from respondent No.1, in relation to the complaint he had made. Initially, respondent No.1 had decided to supply the information sought for by the appellant. However, subsequently the same was denied on the ground that a petition bearing number CWP No.17021 of 2009 Karamjit Singh v. Union of India and others, was pending before this Court, wherein, a direction was being prayed to hand over the investigation being carried out by the Chandigarh Police to CBI. Aggrieved by this, appellant filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission (for short, 'the Commission'). The prayer made by the appellant was accepted and respondent No.1 was directed to supply the information, as was initially agreed to, along with the report that was sent to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Chandigarh. It is the said order, which was assailed by the CBI, before the learned Single Judge of this Court.
(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: "As the situation stands today, in terms of the directions issued by this Court, FIR has been registered by CBI for investigation into the scam pertaining to recruitment of teachers in Chandigarh. No doubt, the prayer in the writ petition filed before this Court was for transfer of investigation in the FIR already registered by Chandigarh Police, but the direction of this court is for handing over the entire record pertaining to the case, which was either with Chandigarh Police or the preliminary enquiry conducted by CBI on a complaint filed by respondent No.2. Though respondent No.2 sought to raise an apprehension that the grievance raised by him in his complaint may not be enquired into by CBI, hence, this cannot be said to be a matter under investigation and the copies of documents forming part thereof can be supplied to him, as the bar under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act will not be applicable. However, the contention is misconceived, if considered in the light of the directions issued by this court and the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner before this court. Once the matter is under investigation, in terms of provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, the information pertaining thereto cannot be supplied in a query under the Act." ;