Central Information Commission
R. K. Jain vs Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate ... on 26 May, 2020
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 ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CESAT/A/2018/163936
Shri R K Jain ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, O/o the Customs ... ितवादी /Respondent
Excise & Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, West Block, No. 2, R K
Puram, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.07.2018 FA : 28.07.2018 SA : 23.10.2018
CPIO : 18.07.2018 FAO : 30.08.2018 Hearing : 14.05.2020
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 Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Block, No. 2, R K Puram, New Delhi seeking information on three points, including, inter-alia: (i) Please provide the details of the cases/appeals which are pending registration due to defect as on 1- 6-2018 and in which the defects has not been cured during the last two months; (ii) Please provide the details of the cases/appeals which has been kept in abeyance as on 1-62018 for registration due to any technical or legal reason or awaiting for some Page 1 of 5 decision; and (iii) Please provide the details of the cases/appeals which are pending registration for more than 30 days as on 1-6-2018.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 28.07.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 30.08.2018 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-call. The respondent, Shri Rajendra Prasad, CPIO attended the hearing through video-call.
4. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 07.07.2018. The respondent has wrongly denied the information to him. The appellant submitted that the First Appellate Authority has erred in holding that prior to the issue of office order dated 28-8-2018, no records in relation to the defective appeals and applications used to be maintained. The First Appellate Authority has erred in not appreciating that as per the CESTAT letter dated 5-6-2014, and the CESTAT Judicial Manual, such records are required to be maintained as the defect has to be cured within 21 days. The appellant further stated that earlier he had sought similar information from the CPIO and the CPIO has provided the same by his letter dated 19-8-2014. This clearly establishes that the CPIO has wrongly and malafidely claimed that no records are maintained in relation to the defective appeals and applications. The appellant further submitted that the First Appellate Authority has wrongly relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay as the CPIO has never claimed that the information sought is voluminous. Moreover, the information sought by the appellant is even Page 2 of 5 otherwise required to be proactive disclosed as per provisions of section 4 of the RTI Act inasmuch as the High Courts and Supreme Court have already placed the data regarding the defective petitions on their websites. The appellant further submitted that the First Appellate Authority has also failed to appreciate that his predecessor by order No. 29/2014 dated 30-7-2014 has already directed for the disclosure of information in question now being sought by the appellant for a different period, therefore, the FAA was bound by the predecessor's decision and cannot make a departure without assigning any reason. The appellant stated that the First Appellate Authority has wrongly held that providing of information can result in wastage of public time. The appellant has not sought any special information but sought an information which is maintained by CESTAT in normal course and since there is time-limit of 21 days in curing the defect, therefore the appellant in order to contain malpractices and corruption in this regard sought the information.
5. The respondent reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and FAA and stated that the information sought by the appellant is not maintained in their office. The respondent submitted that the FAA has observed that "Keeping in view the same the wastage of public time is held not permissible for the meticulous exercise of physical verification for providing the impugned detail. However, since it has come as an admission that registry has maintained some record since 28.08.2018 in furtherance of the aforesaid office order, the Registry is hereby directed to provide the copy of the said record to the appellant."
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties after perusal of records, observes that the appellant is aggrieved with the reply given by the respondent and the FAA on his RTI application and first appeal. The appellant insisted that the information sought by him is duly maintained by the respondent public authority, as earlier they have also provided the similar information to him Page 3 of 5 and now it has been denied on malafide grounds. However, the respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant is not readily available in their office and it is a wastage of time of public authority to collate such type of information.
7. Since, the appellant produced before the Commission relevant documents which shows that similar information has been provided to the appellant in his earlier RTI applications, therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to re-check their records carefully and if information is available in their records, then the same should be provided to the appellant as per his RTI application dated 07.07.2018. But if the information is not available in their records, then, an affidavit to this effect should be given to the Commission and appellant deposing that no such records are available in their office. The above directions of the Commission should be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क / Date:-14.05.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#ािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, O/o the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Block, No. 2, R K Puram, New Delhi - 110066.
2. Shri R K Jain, Page 5 of 5