Central Information Commission
Mr.R K Jain vs Cbec on 16 July, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.308, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
File No.CIC/SS/C/2013/000183/LS
Appellant : R.K.Jain
Respondent : CESTAT
Date of hearing : 16.7.2013
Date of decision : 16.7.2013
FACTS
1. A coordinate Bench of the Commission had passed the following order dated 26.4.13 in case No.CIC/SS/A/2012/001226:
"1. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.9.2011 ref. no. RTI/11/3758 addressed to the CPIO, Customes, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal seeking information on three points being reproduced below:
i) Please provide copy of the Memo Register, Complaint Register and vigilance action register being maintained at CESTAT, New Delhi in pursuance to Order No. 23/2010, dated 14.5.2010 of the First Appellate Authority CESTAT, New Delhi (copy enclosed).
ii) Please intimate the name & designation of officers who are maintain the aforesaid three registers.
iii) Please provide copies of all memo issued from 1.7.2009 till date and their present status & inspection of all records, files & registers for information sought under clause
(a), (b) above.
2. On non receipt of reply from the CPIO the appellant filed an appeal dated 16.11.2011. The first appellate authority vide his order dated 3.1.2012 held that "This is a matter which requires attention by the Registrar of CESTAT. He is directed to ensure that the registers are maintained as directed in order No.23/2010 dated 14.5.2010."
3. Thereafter the appellant filed second appeal before the Commission mainly on the following grounds/issues:
i) The CPIO and deemed CPIO has acted in a malafide manner, caused undue delay and the appellant has not received the complete information till date.
ii) The CPIO has made a misstatement before the first appellate authority that he wrote letters dated 9.11.2011, 29.11.2011 and 16.12.2011 to the vigilance officer, instead the said letters were addressed to Shri Mohinder Singh, Asst. Registrar (Adm).
iii) The CPIO has made a misstatement before the first appellate authority that the delay in providing the information was caused due to the reason that the CPIO has written to the registrar on 20.9.2011 to appoint a different CPIO. The appellant contends that the decision on this issue was taken in a days time and hence this is not a valid ground for delay.
iv) The appellant contends that Shri Mohinder Singh and Shri S.K Verma have made themselves liable for penalty proceedings and disciplinary proceedings as per the RTI Act by not providing a reply on time.
v) The order dated 14.5.2010 of the first appellate authority to maintain Memo Register, Complaint Register and vigilance action register has not been complied with.
vi) The appellant further contends that the first communication to the deemed CPIO was sent only after a lapse of 30 days. Further, Shri Mohinder Singh, deemed CPIO did not respond to the letters of the CPIO on time and that the partial information was received from him only on 25.5.2012.
4. The CPIO submits during the hearing that the first appellate authority mentioned "vigilance officer" instead of "deemed CPIO"
by way of typographical error. The CPIO has also produced letters dated 9.11.2011, 29.11.2011 & 16.12.2011 addressed to Shri Mohinder Singh, Asst. Registrar (Adm).
Further, the CPIO has also produced a note sheet wherein the said request for appointing another CPIO is being made.
Decision:
The Commission is of the view that as there is prima facie delay in providing information to the appellant, a separate show cause notice shall be issued to the CPIO and deemed CPIO to explain as to why a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees not exceeding twenty five thousand rupees shall not be imposed for causing such delay in providing information to the appellant.
A separate show cause notice will issue."
2. The matter is heard today dated 16.7.13. Appellant present. The Public Authority is represented by Shri S.K.Verma, Assistant Registrar and Shri Mohinder Singh, Deputy Registrar.
3. The written submission of Shri S.K.Verma is taken on record. According to him, as the appellant had levelled allegation of bias against him, he had marked the copy of the RTI application to his subordinate on 20.9.11with the remark:
'I recuse to deal any application by R.K.Jain'.
He adds that the RTI application was responded to vide letter dated 29.3.12. On a query from the Commission, he would submit that requisite information was not being maintained and the records had to be created under the orders of FAA. Compilation of records took time due to which there was delay in responding to the RTI application.
4. As the appellant does not press the matter, the penalty proceedings are dropped and the matter is closed.
Sd/ (M.L.Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy . Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Address of parties
1. Shri S.K.Verma Assistant Registrar & CPIO Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal 2 West Block R.K.Puram New Delhi
2. Shri R.K.Jain No.1512B Bhism Pitamah Marg Wazir Nagar New Delhi 110 003