Central Information Commission
R. K. Jain vs Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate ... on 4 December, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
वतीय अपील सं#या/Second Appeal No. CIC/CESAT/A/2019/113738
R K Jain ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
...$ तवाद /Respondent
The CPIO
Custom Excise & Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, RTI Cell
SCO -147-148, Sec-17C,
Chandigarh-160017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 09.11.2018 FA : 21.12.2018 SA : 25.03.2019
CPIO : 11.12.2018 FAO : 13.03.2019 Hearing: 24-11-2020
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, Chandigarh. The appellant seeking information on eight points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) "Please provide number of reserve orders pending with each of the Member of the CESTAT, posted at Chandigarh as on 1-10-2018 and as on 8-11-2018 and provide details of the reserve orders pending as on date of providing the information. Please also provide details of appeal no., name of party, date of reserving the order and composition Page 1 of 5 of Bench for such reserve orders. Such information is held by PS to the members;
(ii) Please provide details of cases in which operative part of order has been pronounced after hearing but reasoned orders has not been passed. This information may be provided for the period from 1-1-
2018 till date. Please also provide details of Appeal no., name of party, date when operative part was pronounced and composition of such Benches. This information is held by PS to the Members, etc."
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 21.12.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 13.03.2019 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. It was informed to the Commission that the appellant was expired and his son through his e-mail dated 23.11.2020 had stated that the case should be decided on merits. The respondent was not present despite notice.
Decision:
4. The Commission, after perusal of records, observes that the appellant in his second appeal contested that "the order of the FAA is illegal, incorrect, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant contested that the order of the FAA has been passed with violation of principal of natural justice. Further, the FAA has erred in not appreciating that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information on the plea that the information is not compiled in their office and the information regarding details of appeal no., memo of parties and composition of bench is available on the CESTAT website. The appellant further contested that information sought by him is not available on the CESTAT website. The appellant further stated in his second appeal that as per the CESTAT Order No 4 of 2009 dated 17-7-2009, the reserve orders including the orders where operative part is only pronounced in open court are to be issued in a time bound manner and in case of period beyond 4/6 months, the matter has to be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble President and the said order also cast an obligation on Dy Page 2 of 5 Registrars, Asst Registrars PS to bring the non compliance of CESTAT Order No 4 of 2009 to the notice of concerned authorities. The appellant further stated in his second appeal that similar information has been provided by the another bench of CESTAT i.e. Chennai bench".
5. The Commission further observed that the respondent had given a response on point nos. 4 (A), (B) & (H) that the information is not being compiled by their office. On point nos. 4(D), (E), (F) & (G) information has been provided to the appellant. The appellant in his RTI application has sought information regarding pending cases of the authority which are in compliance of order no. 4 of 2009. The Commission is of the view that the CPIO is not expected and neither supposed to analyse all such cases as per the filters provided by the appellant and then provide information to him under the ambit of RTI Act.
6. The Commission is of the view that it is desirable that all official records either administrative or judicial of the respondent public authority should be digitalized as per Section 4 of the RTI Act. The status of judicial cases viz. date of hearing of the case, date of judgment, status of the case, etc. should be suo-moto disclosed on the website of the Tribunal. The Commission has earlier also heard similar nature of matters where the Commission had directed the public authority to suo-moto disclose the details of cases. This practice has also been followed in all Superior Courts and quasi-judicial authorities. The respondent public authority should also take a view in the matter regarding digitalization of records and should be put in public-domain.
7. The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realized only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and Page 3 of 5 all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
8. In view of this, the Commission advised the public authority to take appropriate and corrective steps in the matter preferably in 3 months time from the date of this order. The respondent is advised to place a copy of this order before the competent authority. Further, the matter should be placed before the Secretary, Ministry of Revenue, Govt. of India for appropriate view in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 4 of 510. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कुमार गु&ता)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ता
सच
Information Commissioner (सू ना आय'ु त)
त
दनांक / Date:24-11-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अ(भ$मा*णत स,या पत $ त)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Custom Excise & Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, RTI Cell
SCO -147-148, Sec-17C, Chandigarh-160017
2. Shri R K Jain
Page 5 of 5