Central Information Commission
Akhil Krishan Maggu vs Directorate Genenral Of Gst ... on 13 December, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/DGSTI/A/2020/670756
Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
O/o. the Directorate General of
GST Intelligence, West Block-8
Wing No. 6, 2nd Floor, RK Puram
New Delhi-110066
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 22-01-2020 FA : 21-02-2020 SA : 18-05-2020
CPIO : 21-02-2020 FAO : 20-03-2020 Hearing : 10-12-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o. the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, RK Puram New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on ten points including inter-alia as under:-
Q.1. Kindly provide when the Grievance No. CBOEC/E/2019/06197 Dated 23.11.2019 filed at Centralized Public Grievance Redress And Monitoring System was adjudicated by Sh. Sandeep Prakash, Pr. Additional Director General, DGGI, Delhi Zonal Unit, West block- VIII, Wing No.- III, 1st floor, R K Puram, New Delhi- 110066, which was made the authority to redress the grievance of the subject grievance so filed. Q.2. Kindly provide information whether with respect to the Grievance No. CBOEC/E/2019/06197 Dated 23.11.2019, any hearing opportunity has been granted to the grievant by Sh. Sandeep Prakash, Pr. Additional Director General, DGGI, Delhi Zonal Unit, West block- VIII, Wing No.-
III, 1st floor, R K Puram, New Delhi- 110066.
Q.3. If the answer to question no.2 is Yes, kindly provide the mode by Page 1 of 4 which it was communicated to the grievant and also provide the proof for the same. etc
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 21.02.2020 had furnished a point wise reply to the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 21-02-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 20-03-2020 uphold CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Aditya Bhardwaj, Asst. Director (Intelligence)/ CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant while reiterating the background of the case submitted that the respondent has conducted an illegal raid in an illegal manner at his residence on 28.08.2019. Consequent to that he has filed numerous complaints against the officers involved and their conduct. However his complaints had been closed by the respondent without giving any reason thereto. Further even after filing the RTI application the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 22.01.2020 hence he pleaded that the documents based upon which his complaints have been closed be furnished to him.
6. The respondent while reiterating the replies of the CPIO/ FAA submitted that the conducted raid pertains to the fraudulent GST refund in which the appellant himself is a party. He further submitted that the point no. 01 to 08 of the RTI application needs no comments as the information sought is vague and does not construe as information. With regards to point no. 09 to 11 of the RTI application since the investigation is ongoing in the matter, furnishing the same would hamper the process of investigation.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought the information pertaining to his grievance dated 23.11.2019 and issues related thereto. Further the Commission cannot adjudicate and settle the grievance of the appellant under the framework of the RTI Act. The Commission further observes that for Page 2 of 4 adequacy of information the appellant should have framed his queries as per the Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence the information sought by the appellant is in the nature of seeking clarification/explanation/opinion/advice/confirmation from the CPIO. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to compile information as per the desire of the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority.
8. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 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."
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. 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' n 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 the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
9. However, the Commission is of the view that while closing the grievance filed by the appellant, some competent authority after examining the same must have closed it. Keeping in view the same the Commission therefore directs the respondent to furnish the broad outcome/ action taken to the appellant without divulging with the details of the process, facts involved in the investigation, internal details, etc., within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
Page 3 of 410. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 10-12-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
O/o. the Directorate General of
GST Intelligence, West Block-8
Wing No. 6, 2nd Floor, RK Puram
New Delhi-110066
2. Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu
Page 4 of 4