Central Information Commission
Bineesh Kumar K S vs Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate ... on 31 May, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CESAT/A/2017/180431-BJ
Mr. Bineesh Kumar K. S.
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO & Asst. Registrar
Custom, Excise & Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)
West Block - 2, R. K. Puram
New Delhi - 110066
2. Shri S. K. Verma
Assistant Registrar, CESTAT
E. R. Branch, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road
Bamboo Villa, 7th Floor
Kolkata - 700014
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.05.2019
Date of Decision : 31.05.2019
Date of RTI application 17.03.2017
CPIO's response 30.03.2017
Date of the First Appeal 07.07.2017
(mentioned in 2nd
Appeal)
First Appellate Authority's response 29.09.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 30.11.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The information seeker vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding the year-wise number of applications under the RTI Act w.e.f. 01.01.2013 till the date of providing information; year-wise number of applications under the RTI Act, by Mr. R.K. Jain w.e.f. 01.01.2013 till the date of providing information; year-wise number of Appeals filed with the Page 1 of 3 FAA under RTI Act w.e.f. 01.01.2013 till the date of providing information and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, Deputy Registrar (Admn.), vide its letter dated 30.03.2017 for point (g), stated that the copies of APAR/ACR for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15 consisting 20 pages gathered from the APAR/ACR folder. APAR for the period 2015-16 had not been received by them, till date and the APAR for the year 2002-2003, was not authorized to be given since the system of giving copies of APAR was started from the year 2009. Dissatisfied by the response, the information seeker approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 29.09.2017 directed the CPIO to provide the copies of APAR for the year 2015-16 as soon as it is received in the Tribunal and further directed to provide ACR for the period 2002-03 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. Moreover, in respect of APAR for other years for which copies had already been provided, it was directed to provide the observation of the Reviewing Authority within a period mentioned above.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Gupta Appellant's representative; Respondent: Mr. Rajender Prasad, AO & CPIO, CESTAT in person;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that action was already been under taken on his application and that he did not wish to pursue the matter further. In its reply, the Respondent expressed satisfaction and stated that no further action was to be initiated on their end.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to Page 2 of 3 the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the submission of the Appellant not to press this matter further, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 31.05.2019
Page 3 of 3