Central Information Commission
S. K. Verma vs Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate ... on 14 June, 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/CESAT/A/2021/602529 +
CIC/CESAT/C/2021/602609
S K Verma ......अपीलकता /Appellant
....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Customs Excise & Service Tax,
Appellate Tribunal, RTI Cell,
2nd Floor, West Block No. 2,
R K Puram, New Delhi - 110066. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13/06/2022
Date of Decision : 13/06/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeal/ Complaint have been clubbed for decision as
these are based on the same RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal/complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07/09/2020
CPIO replied on : 27/10/2020
First appeal filed on : 17/11/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28/01/2021 & 29/01/2021
1
Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.09.2020 seeking the following information:
"PLEASE PROVIDE ALL DOCUMENTS INCLUDING ALL NOTE SHEETS OF THE FILES IN WHICH REPRESENTATION/APPEAL/REVIEW dated 17.03.2020 filed by Mr. S.K. Verma former Assistant Registrar before the Union Finance Minister including minutes of the reviewing committee formed for the same and composition thereof.
Please provide all the information containing of all documents and note sheets and complete set of file wherein the proposal to invoke the rule 56J in respect of Mr. S. K. Verma and all other persons who attained 50 years of age was considered and order dated 12.03.2020 was issued. Composition of review committee. Authority who constitute the review committee. This file is being maintained at CESTAT."
The CPIO/CESTAT, New Delhi replied to the Appellant/Complainant on 27.10.2020 stating as follows:-
"The documents are kept in a confidential file which cannot be parted with now. Since the RTI Applicant has filed a court case before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata on the subject matter dealt in the concerned file and since he has already taken definite pleadings in furtherance of his case, the information/documents sought by the Applicant is declined. Resides, the process of review relating to compulsory retirement of CESTAT officials are going on, the file notings/correspondences cannot be given at this stage."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.11.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Rajender Prasad, Accounts Officer & CPIO along with Mukesh Gupta, Deputy Registrar (Deemed CPIO) present through intra-video conference.2
The Appellant/Complainant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO as the denial of the information was mindless and without invoking any exemption clause of the RTI Act. He sought for action against the concerned CPIO in this regard as well as prayed for relief to be ordered in the matter.
The CPIO submitted that since the relevant file was not available with his office, inputs were sought from the concerned section and the reply as received from the deemed CPIO was provided to the Appellant/Complainant and he has no authority to question the said inputs.
The Appellant/Complainant stated that the CPIO and deemed CPIO are confusing his case with other cases pending with them under 56J and urged that since his case is not pending, the information should be provided to him.
The CPIO did not contest the contentions of the Appellant/Complainant and further upon a query from the Commission, the CPIO agreed to provide the cull out the information that related to the Appellant's case alone.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the denial of the information is in grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act as no exemption of the RTI Act has been invoked for the denial of the information, and indicates absolute ignorance of the CPIO regarding the provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO has not tendered any argument which reflects upon any of the permissible exemptions of Section 8 of the RTI Act and nor has he contested the arguments of the Appellant/Complainant that records related to his case of 56J can be provided to him.
Having observed as above, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the available and relevant information sought for in the RTI Application restricted to the Appellant's case of 56J while information related to other officers will stand exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to redact the names and identifying particulars of the officers who have tendered the noting(s)/correspondences as well as of the third parties, who may bear a mention in the relevant records in consonance with Section 8(1)(g) read with Section 10 of the RTI Act.3
The information as directed above shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Lastly, with respect to the aspect of the Complaint seeking action against the CPIO/Deemed CPIO for obstructing the right to information of the Complainant, the Commission finds that the material on record as well as the submissions tendered by the CPIO during the hearing do not suggest any malafides or a deliberate denial of the information. In this regard, attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Similarly, an observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Bhagat Singh vs. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 is also relevant to point out here which reads as under:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a 4 direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Having observed no action is warranted under Section 20 of the RTI Act against the CPIO.
The appeal/complaint 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 / 5