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/2018/162548
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 : 14.09.2016 FA : 29.10.2016 SA : 16.10.2018
CPIO : 24.10.2016 FAO : 17.05.2018 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 five points, including, inter-alia: (i) provide the list of the reserve orders which are pending for pronouncement or issue of orders as on 9- 9-2016 and as on the date of providing the information with Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J), Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (J), Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (T) and Shri Padmanabhan, Member (T); (ii) Please provide list of the orders in which Page 1 of 4 operative part was pronounced in open court but written order is still to be issued as on 8-8-2016 with Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J), Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (J), Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (T) and Shri Padmanabhan, Member (T), etc.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 29.10.2016 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 17.05.2018 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 point no. (a) of his RTI application dated 14.09.2016. The respondent has wrongly stated that no such list is maintained in their records. The appellant further stated that the First Appellate Authority order is illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction as it has been passed and issued in the end of July, 2018, when the First Authority in CESTAT New Delhi was Mrs. Rachna Gupta as per order F. No. 27 (28) /CESTAT / Admn / 2005 - Part-II dated 18-5-2018. The said order has been antedated to gain jurisdiction and this is evident from the fact that the order was received by the appellant on 30-7-2018 when Shri Padmanabhan was not the First Appellate Authority. The appellant further stated his first Appeal dated 29.10.2016 was heard by the First Appellate Authority on 15.12.2016 and on conclusion of the hearing, the order was reserved. Thereafter the First Appellate Authority did not passed any order for more than 19 months and finally after 19 months and 10 days, Page 2 of 4 the appellant on 30-7-2018 received the order dated 17-5-2018. As per the provisions of section 19 of the RTI Act, the First Appellate Authority is required to pass the Appellate Order within 45 days of filing of appeal. The appellant further stated that the CPIO have erred in denying the information on point no. (a) on the ground that no such list is maintained in their records. The appellant further insisted that lists are duly available in their records, as those lists were sent to the Ministries.
5. The respondent reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and FAA and stated that the information sought by the appellant on point no. (a) to (c.) is not maintained in the office of Hon'ble Member (J), Mr. S.K. Mohanty.
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 on point no. (a) of the RTI application dated 14.09.2016. The Commission observed that the appellant on point no. (a.) of his RTI application had sought information regarding list of the reserve orders which are pending for pronouncement or issue of orders as on 9-9-2016 and as on the date of providing the information with Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J), Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (J), Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (T) and Shri Padmanabhan, Member (T) but the respondent in its reply dated 24.10.2016 had only mentioned that "No such list is maintained by the Office of Hon'ble Member (J), Mr. S.K. Mohanty." No information of other members is mentioned in the reply of the CPIO. Further, the appellant insisted that the information sought is duly available on point no. (a.) of the RTI application with the respondent public authority.
7. In view of the above observations and discussions, the Commission directs the respondent to give a revised specific reply/information on point no. (a) of the RTI application 14.09.2016 to the appellant after proper examination of their records, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Page 3 of 48. The Administrative Authority is advised to review the functioning of the First Appellate Authority and ensure that such mistake does not happen in future. The CPIO is directed to place this order before the competent authority.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. 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) 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.
2. Shri R K Jain, Page 4 of 4