(1.) The first respondent is an advocate practicing at Dindigul. He made an application dated 24.3.2011 under the Right to Information Act (for short "the RTI Act") to the Public Information Officer to furnish him a copy of the Vigilance Manual of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The Superintendent of Police, Central Range, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit, Chennai, the Public Information Officer passed the order dated 8.4.2011 rejecting the request of the first respondent on the ground that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (for short, "the DVAC") has been exempted from furnishing information under the RTI Act as per G.O.Ms. No. 158. Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 26.8.2008. The first respondent filed an appeal before the Joint Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai, the appellate authority. The appeal was rejected by order dated 28.6.2011. The appellate authority also noted that though Writ Appeal Nos. 320 and 321 of 2010 were tiled by the DVAC and a direction was issued by this Court to furnish the information regarding the number of police officials who were caught during the raid by DVAC together with the list of names, the designation and the address of officials, number of investigations completed and convictions arrived at between the years 2003-04 and 2007-08 etc. in corruption matters to the applicants therein, the DVAC decided to question the same before the Apex Court and a proposal was sent to the Government on 20.5.2011.
(2.) The first respondent herein took up the matter before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, the second respondent against the order of the appellate authority by way of second appeal. The Tamil Nadu Information Commission, by the impugned order dated 28.11.2011, allowed the second appeal and directed the writ petitioner to furnish a copy of the manual on payment of appropriate charges. The Tamil Nadu Information Commission held that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes the manual maintained by the DVAC and therefore, the first respondent is entitled to have a copy of the same. This writ petition is filed to quash the said order.
(3.) The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner has submitted that G.O. Ms. No. 158, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 26.8.2008 was issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act exempting DVAC from the purview of the RTI Act and, therefore, the authorities were correct in refusing to give the copy of the manual to the first respondent. He has further submitted that G.O. Ms. No. 158 dated 26.8.2008 was questioned before this Court in W.P. No. 4907 of 2009 and the said Government Order was upheld on 30.3.2009. Therefore, the impugned order is erroneous and the same is liable to be quashed. It was also submitted that since DVAC is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. Section 2(f) cannot be made applicable to the DVAC.