Central Information Commission
Mrr K Jain vs Department Of Revenue on 26 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067. Tel: 011 - 26182597, 26182598
Appeal No.:CIC/KY/A/2014/000092/BJ
Appellant : Shri R K Jain
1512B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg,
Wazir Nagar, New Delhi 110003.
Respondents CPIO
M/o Finance, D/o Revenue
Custom & Central Excise Settlement
Commission, Samrat Hotel, Kautalya Marg,
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 26.05.2016
Date of Decision : 26.05.2016
Date of filing of RTI application 08.10.2013
CPIO's response 07.11.2013
Date of filing the First appeal 13.11.2013
First Appellate Authority's response 18.12.2013
Date of filing second appeal before the Commission 26.12.2013
O R D E R
FACTS:
The appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 08.10.2013, sought following information:
A. "Please provide details of the implementation Para 1.0 to 6.1 (including all subparas, clauses and subclauses) of the Guidelines issued under DPOT Office Memoranda No. 1/6/2011IR Dated 15.04.2013 (Copy enclosed).
B. Please provide date on which information referred to in points 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 2.1,
2.2f(a) to 2.2(1), 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.0 and 5.0 of aforesaid Guidelines has been put in public domain and mode of such disclosure.
Page 1 of 3C. Please provide the name and designation of the Officers who are responsible for implementation of each of the Paras 1.0 to 6.1 (including each of the clauses and sub clauses) of aforesaid Guidelines.
D. Please provide list of the items, paras, subparas, clauses and subclauses of aforesaid Guidelines have not so far been implemented and name of the official responsible for such nonimplementation.
E. Please provide date and diary No. under which the aforesaid OM dated 15.04.2013 of DOPT has been received.
F. Please provide file Nos. under which aforesaid OM dated 15.04.2013 has been dealt with and provide photocopies of all note sheets of said file/files.
G. After providing the above information, please provide inspection of all records, documents, notesheets and files relating to the information as referred to in point (A) to (F) above. Please provide inspection of complete file(s) even if they contain part of the information."
The CPIO had given a reply to the appellant on 07/11/2013. Aggrieved with this, the appellant filed first appeal vide his letter dated 13.11.2013. The First Appellate Authority, vide his order dated 18/12/2013, allowed the appeal to the extent that the CPIO shall transfer the part of application pertaining to the information, held by the Ministry of Finance for providing the desired information to the appellant.
Aggrieved with this, the appellant filed second appeal before the Commission vide his letter dated 26.12.2013. He has alleged that the CPIO Sh. Anil Sharma, US, had provided incomplete and incorrect information. The appellant prayed that the order of the FAA be set aside and the CPIO be directed to provide information within specified time period.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. R. K. Jain (M:9810077977);
Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Kapoor, Superintendent Settlement Commission (Delhi) (M:9816363439);
The appellant reiterated the facts contained in his RTI application. Primarily, the appellant contested the implementation of the proactive disclosures to be made by the public authorities under Section4 of the RTI Act, 2005. A reference was drawn to the guidelines issued by DoPT dated 15/04/2013 enumerating the purpose for such disclosures on a proactive basis. It was argued that large amount of information pertaining to the functioning of the government should be made available in the public domain. It was further stated that the CPIO is an important functionary as per the provisions of Section 5 of the RTI Act, 2005 wherein he has been entrusted with the onerous responsibility of ensuring suomoto/proactive disclosures.Page 2 of 3
The appellant stated that status of implementation of OM mentioned in the RTI application has not yet been intimated even after a lapse of approximately 03 years. Replying to the issues raised by the appellant, the respondent stated that he is ready to disclose whatever information is available but he is not the competent authority to decide on the quantity or quality of such disclosures. It was further explained by the respondent that presently the guidelines/circulars etc. issued by the Settlement Commission are displayed on the website of the M/o Finance where their organization is a part of the portal. The National Informatics Centre (NIC) which is the nodal organization for creation and maintenance of the website is entrusted with the task of carrying out necessary modifications. The resplendent also invariably approach NIC for certain amendments in the parameters as and when required. It was admitted that due to certain procedural requirements, all disclosures had not yet been made. The appellant therefore contested that there is no transparency within the public authority which needs to be rectified.
The appellant requested that the Commission may instruct the CPIO to proactively disclose such information on the website u/s Section4 of the RTI Act.
DECISION:
Based on the discussions held during the hearing, as also the facts of the case, it is observed that there is an urgent need for the respondents to reexamine the public disclosure policy as enshrined in the RTI act and implement it in the right spirit. In order to do this exercise there is a need to reorganize the administrative mechanism in the larger public interest. The Commission therefore instructed the respondent to provide the information sought by the appellant within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3