Central Information Commission
Vijay Narayanan Rai vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai ... on 17 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/CUSCZ/A/2017/105730-BJ
Mr. Vijay Narayanan Rai
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
FAA & Jt. Commissioner of Customs
Chennai - IV Commissionerate
Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Chennai - IV)
Custom House, 60, Rajaji Salai
Chennai - 600001
2. Shri Ashok Sharma
201, Kaikhali Main Road, Near Panchavati Complex
Flat No. 1 C, 24 Paraganas (North)
Kolkata - 700052, West Bengal
(M: 09831309585/ 09830354939)
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.05.2019
Date of Decision : 17.05.2019
Date of RTI application 10.05.2016
CPIO's response 02.06.2016
Date of the First Appeal 15.06.2016
First Appellate Authority's response 26.10.2016
(mentioned in 2nd
Appeal)
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 27.01.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The information seeker vide his RTI application sought information regarding copy of the CA Certificate , balance sheet of the company , F.I.R copy & note sheet copy submitted by M/S Bata India.Page 1 of 4
The CPIO vide its letter dated 02/06/2016 while denying the information u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005 stated that the information sought was exempted from disclosure since it related to the third party and the Manager, Imports, Bata India Ltd., vide letter dated 26.05.2016 had objected to the disclosure of information. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA in its order dated 26/10/2016 directed to furnish the note sheet copies of the relevant file/files other than the third party information to the Appellant. Aggrieved with the reply, the CPIO (Mr. Vijay Narayanan Rai) approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. G. Chinappa Reddy, Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Appellant's representative, through VC;
Respondent: Absent;
Third Party: Mr. Radhakrishnan, Documentation Manager M/s Bata India Ltd. (Chennai) through VC;
The information seeker remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Kapil Dev, Network Engineer NIC studio at Kolkata confirmed the absence of the information seeker. The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that Mr. Vijay Narayanan Rai had since retired and that Mr. Reddy was representing him. The Third Party present at the hearing drew the attention of the Commission to its decision in Appeal Nos. CIC/CUSCZ/A/2017/130084-BJ + CIC/CCCCZ/A/2017/181618-BJ dated 04.12.2017. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from Mr. G. Chinappa Reddy (Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai) dated 10.05.2019 wherein it was stated that the FAA failed to consider the severability clause in Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 and the reasonable difficulties in severing the third party information in the note sheets of the file dealing with the application of the Third Party. The file notings requested were found to be exclusively dealing with details of imports made by M/s Bata India Ltd., and the data was continuous language format and not in rows and column, table-data format hence it was not practicable to segregate the noting into portions which dealt with M/s Bata India Ltd., and otherwise. Besides any such segregation meant to create a data and providing to the Appellant this creation of date in the new format was not mandated in the RTI Act and no larger public interest was established by the Appellant for the Third Party Information. Furthermore, the file noting on the refund application were dealing inter alia with the information of Third Party relating to their sales, financial assets as to the unjust enrichment aspect relating to the refund of the customs duty so claimed by the Third Party. The Third Party had claimed that the note sheet in question pertained to the refund claims by them and contained details of relevant Bills of Entry No., Assessable Value, Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) amount, relevant Special Valuation Branch (SVB) orders, etc that the said information related to vendors, import pricing and were commercial and confidential in nature hence should have been denied by the FAA u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, in support of their contention a reference was made to the decision of the Commission in Shri Dinesh Sankhla vs. IOCL dated 08.01.2014. It was also stated that the FAA failed to consider that the Applicant had not established any larger public interest for disclosure of information. In this context a reference was made to the Commission's decision in Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001398/SH dated 11.08.2014 wherein reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) Nos. 8396/2009, 16907/2006 and decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9502/2012 dated 13.12.2012. It was also mentioned that the same case was heard and decided by the Commission on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Ashok Sharma (Applicant) on 04.12.2017 Page 2 of 4 and decided vide Order No. CIC/CUSCZ/A/2017/130084-BJ + CIC/CCCCZ/A/2017/181618-BJ dated 04.12.2017 wherein it was held that no further intervention of the Commission was required. It was submitted that in the above order of the Commission, all the submissions of the CPIO, Chennai IV, including the fact of filing of Second Appeal against the FAA order dated 26.10.2016 had been taken on record.
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 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."
Page 3 of 47. "....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 available on record as also the decision of the Commission cited above in the aforesaid matter, 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: 17.05.2019
Page 4 of 4