Central Information Commission
Rajesh Sharma vs Directorate General Of Foreign Trade on 30 September, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DGOFT/A/2022/640214
Rajesh Sharma ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Directorate General of Foreign
Trade, RTI Cell, Udyog Bhawan,
H-Wing, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi-110011 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/09/2022
Date of Decision : 28/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 08/04/2022
First appeal filed on : 07/06/2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22/07/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.03.2022 seeking the following information:
"We, Noesis Consulting Private Limited, with IEC Code 0517540096 and R.CMC certificate No. SEPC/03/04/4537/2018-19 having registered office at 1 13-56, LGF, Greater Kai lash Enclave Part --1, New Delhi -110048, engaged in services including but not limited to Accounting, Auditing and Book Keeping and other services as mentioned under CPC provisional code number 862, as per Attachment 3D. On 21.02.2020, an SE1S Scheme Application has been filed with DGFT through online portal with requisite documents. On 24.02.2020 a Deficiency Letter has been received, for which all requisite documents were submitted.
Further, please note that the application which was filed for the period 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019, an amount of $ 1,89,550.00 was fill up in the column of Gross Foreign Exchange earned in US$. However, after submitting the application we came to know that amount equal to $ 1,89,550.00 (same as the income) has been automatically appeared in the Column of total expenses/payment of foreign exchanges. Due to which our Net entitlement which should be $ 1,89,550.00 becomes zero. It seems purely a technical error of computer system or website of DGFT, We met with the concerned person for rectification of the same error.
On 21.07.2020 an email was received from DGFT office that to write to DGFT HQs for relaxation of SETS filing procedure wider para 2.58 of the FTP for re-submission, after getting a rejection letter for the said claim from the concerned RA. Since, it is an online filing error/inadvertent mistake and approval of the competent authority is required with due process. Accordingly, we had submitted an application in PRC committee Via File No. 01/60/162/349/AM21/PRC for which the meeting held on 26.03.2021, through PRC Meeting No. 26/AM21 but no fruitful outcome was received.
After numerous physical visits, follow ups, mails and on 27.12.2021, we finally met Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Additional DGFT, after his assurance that he will look into the matter and shall proceed the same. On 29.12.2021, we mailed details & requested documents again. We held with a hope that the matter will not be in the stagnant mode but even after few days when there were no response from the concerned authority, we again started the follow up this, mails try to contact the department to know the exact situation of our application no reply/response has been received yet.
We are in indefinite situation wrt the application under SEIS for the year 2018-19. Due to Covid, we already suffered at lot and by putting every 2 effort and so much time on moving from one department to another and Sc) on. All this twirling makes it difficult to focus on our work. knowing the seriousness of the situation, would request to take appropriate necessary steps and provide us exact status of the case."
The CPIO replied to the Appellant on 08.04.2022 stating as under-
".....2. It is informed that your SETS application has been examined in this Directorate and CLA Delhi vide ON4 No. 01/61/180/14 UAN422/PC-3 dt. 08.04.22 has been requested to cheek whether any rejection letter has been issued to the firm in the File no. 05/21/098/50880/A.M20. as the SETS., module is showing that the file has been closed/rejected by CLA Delhi on 30.11.2021. If the case has been rejected, may please share the rejection letter with this Directorate for further necessary action (OM copy enclosed)...."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.06.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-satisfactory response from the CPIO, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. He further contested on the inaction of Respondent public authority in not providing a copy of the rejection letter as a sequel to the rejection of his application filed with DGFT with the CLA under the SEIS scheme (export incentive scheme as per the GoI Foreign Trade Policy) as also not intimating him the latest status of the case.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Priyanka Kapoor, FTDO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply on the following grounds-
".....since information provided by FTDO through Ms. Partibha Kumari and Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Additional DGFT are different, two departments were stating two different statement. FTDO stating that the application has been rejected by CLA as on 30.11.2021 and Mr. Anil Aggarwal, additional DGFT stated that the our 3 application was under technical department for the undue of the errors and it was under observation (xxxxxxxx).The reply of the said RTI response was filed on 26.04.2022 (Copy of the Reply against said RTI response is annexed as Annexure-
3), stating the difference communication received from both the departments and requesting to provide clarity on the status, it is more than 30 days lapsed still no response have been received yet from any of the concerned department. Also, being aggrieved the Appellant also filed the First Appeal on 07.06.2022 to the concerned authority still we haven't received any reply from the department...."
The Appellant , in short , submitted that till date he has not received a copy of the rejection letter from the CLA Delhi and that he cannot move forward for necessary action with the DGFT HQs for relaxation of SETS filing procedure vide para 2.58 of the FTP for re-submission, in the absence of this letter .
In response to it, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards her written submission dated 26.09.2022, relevant portion of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
"....xxxxxx The RTI applicant had filed the RTI application with the CPIO (Policy-3, INJIT) on 09.03.2022. The matter was examined by the then CPIO Ms. Pratibha Kumari at her level and a reply was sent to the applicant on 08.04.2022 (enclosed for reference).
The firm of the applicant M/s NOESIS Consulting Pvt. Ltd. has filed SEIS claim (export incentive scheme as per the GoI Foreign Trade Policy) in the old module on 21.02.2020, additionally in the online module, the firm filed an amount of $ 1,89,550.00 as Gross Foreign Exchange earned in US$ and the same amount equal to $ 1,89,550.00 automatically appeared in the Column of Total expenses/payment of foreign exchanges. Due to which their Net entitlement became zero and the claim of the firm was rejected. The SECS appeal was incorrectly submitted to the Policy Relaxation Committee of DGFT which transferred their case to Policy-3 section of DGFT as per the work allotment. This Directorate is still awaiting the requisite document from its Regional office viz. the Rejection letter to the firm.
In his second appeal to the Hon'ble IC, Shri Rajesh Sharma (applicant) has stated that he had made the first appeal to Shri S. Kipgen on 07.06.2022. This statement has two stark inconsistencies:4
Shri S. Kipgen, Dy. DGFT is not the First Appellate Authority as per the RTI reply provided to the applicant on 08.04.2022; and ii. The applicant has filed the appeal after the passing away of the 30 days of stipulated time period allotted in case of first appeal filing.
The CPI0 (Policy-3 DGFT) was in receipt of a representation dated 26.04.2022 by Shri Rajesh Sharma which would have been processed with due diligence, however, owing to the work on the ongoing large number of appeal cases and representations/clarifications filed with this section, it will take time to process it completely.
Accordingly, it is my humble request that the CIC may kindly consider and direct the RTI applicant to file his first appeal with the correct First Appellate Authority as per the RTI reply provided to him on 08.04.2022 viz.
Dr. Praveen Kumar Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade Vanijya Bhawan, 16, Akbar Road, New Delhi- 110011 Email: [email protected]......"
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se as much it is about the redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding rejection of his application for SIES claim.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and 5 existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of 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' 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Further, as regards the jurisdiction of the Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
6"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) However, by taking an empathetic view in the matter, the CPIO is directed to make possible efforts to procure a copy of the rejection letter regarding the Appellant's request for SEIS claim from the concerned record holder and provide a copy of the same along with the updated status of his application in a categorical manner which will suffices the information sought.
The above said information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7