Central Information Commission
Vijay Kumar Mehata vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 6 December, 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/CBECE/A/2022/612113
Vijay Kumar Mehata ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Assistant Commissioner, O/o
the Pr. Commissioner Central
GST & CX, Patna-I, RTI Cell,
3rd Floor, CR (Annexe
Building), Birchand Patle
Marg, Patna-800001, Bihar .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/12//2022
Date of Decision : 05/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 16/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 07/01/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 18/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.11.2021 seeking information relating to the encroachment of land belonging to the department situated at Central Excise Colony Ashiyaana Nagar, beside Gate No-2 in Patna, Bihar, including inter alia;1
1. "All the effort of the department to recover the land so far.
2. The details of officer responsible directly or indirectly for non-recovery of land and action taken report against the responsible by the concerned.
3. The details of action against the authority responsible for construction of shops after its demolition in the year about 2019.
4. Any direction/order of Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No-
12576/2017 to halt the process of recovery of the said land by the department."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 16.12.2021 stating as under:-
Point No. 1:- "Matter is pending in Hon'ble Patna High Court. Point No. 2:- Matter does not relates to Hqrs. Legal Branch. Point No. 3:- Matter does not relates to Hqrs. Legal Branch. Point No. 4:- Matter is pending in Hon'ble Patna High Court. Copy of Order Sheet dated 06.03.2020 as downloaded from Hon'ble High Court's website 06.03.2020 is annexed."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.01.2022. FAA's order dated 18.02.2022 held as under -
"......7. The appellant filed appeal on the ground that he has not been supplied FIR number and the information also does not contain any direction of honorable court asking the department or authorities concerned to halt the departmental (removal of encroachment or eviction of the said plot and administrative procedure which has specifically been sought by him.
8. As per RTI application, as mentioned in Para 2, the appellant had not earlier sought copies of FIR in his RTI application whereas he is asking FIR number in his appeal. A new information cannot be created at appeal stage. He should file new RT1 application for new information.
9. In his reply to point no 4 of the RTI application, the A.C.(Admin & Welfare),CGST & CX Commissionerate, Patna-I replied, vide letter dt 21/12/2021,that no specific order/direction has been given by the Hon'ble High Court, Patna till date against CWJC No 12576/201 7(Meena Devi Vs UOI).Even A.C.(Legal) intimated vide letter dated 02/02/2022 that no specific order/direction has been given by the Hon'ble High Court, Patna till date. It is clear now that there is no specific direction of Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No-12576/2017 to halt the process of recovery of the said land by the department.2
10. As far other points of RTI application is concerned, all are replied by A .C.(Admin & Welfare),CGST & CX Commissionerate, Patna-I vide letter dated 21/12/2021.Moreover appeal is filed only for FIR number, which being a new information can't be created at Appeal stage and hence not maintainable, and the information for any direction of honorable court asking the t or department or authorities concerned to halt the departmental (removal of encroachment eviction of the said plot) and administrative procedure which had been duly replied by the CPIO in RTI application.
11. Hence appeal has no merit and therefore it is not acceptable...."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Abhishek Singh, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant at the outset while narrating the factual background regarding encroachment of land situated at Central Excise Colony Ashiyana Nagar, beside Gate No-2 in Patna, Bihar submitted that despite the court order, no action has been taken by the Department to demolish the unauthorised construction on the encroached land or get the land evicted from the encroachers. Such situation led him to the filing of instant RTI Application as a citizen of the country and in public interest. Further , he expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that complete desired information has not been provided to him till date. He further kept harping on the inaction of the Respondent Public Authority in over looking the unlawful activity of the encroacher in carrying out illegal construction activity on a regular basis and also not taking action as a sequel to the Hon'ble High Court .
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant available information was already provided to the Appellant. The core contention of the Appellant revolved around the issue of encroachment and demolition of construction structure located at Central Excise Colony Ashiyana Nagar, besides Gate No-2 in Patna, Bihar for which a case is already sub-judice before the Hon'ble Patna High Court and that the department cannot ask the court to expedite the decision and that the RTI platform cannot be used to get the 3 matters expedited pending before the Court of law. He further mentioned that their Department sought advice from the Solicitor General who advised them that since the matter is sub judice , the court order may be awaited before taking any further on the encroachment front.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the contentions of both the parties observes that the relief claimed in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se and in fact, it is about the Appellant's resolve of bringing to fore his grievance pertaining to encroachment of land and demolition of unauthorised construction located at Central Excise Colony Ashiyana Nagar, beside Gate No-2 in Patna, Bihar and further seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO adequately suffices the queries / clarifications raised in the instant RTI Application as per the provisions of RTI Act.
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] where in 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 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) 4 Similarly, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a 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:
"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 empathetic view in the matter, the Appellant is advised to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism .
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5