Central Information Commission
Mrr K Jain vs Department Of Revenue on 9 September, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2012/000742-YA
Date of Hearing : 09.12.2014
Date of Interim Decision : 23.01.2015
Date of Decision : 09.09.2015
Appellant : Shri R.K. Jain
Delhi
Respondent : Shri Rajender Prasad, CPIO/Acc. Officer
Shri S.K. Verma, Asstt. Registrar/former CPIO Shri Kripa Shankar, Asstt. Registrar CESTAT, Delhi Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.09.2011 PIO replied on : 29.11.2011 First Appeal filed on : 19.10.2011 First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : ----- Second Appeal received on : 10.01.2012 Information Sought:
The appellant sought inspection of all records, files, documents and note-sheet relating to seeking of permission by Mr. S.K. Verma for legal action against him, copy of all documents and note-sheets of file no. 27/1/Permission/SKV/CESTAT/Admn/09. Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Both the parties are present. The appellant at the very outset stated the instant case has been wrongly registered as appeal whereas he had filed a complaint u/s 18 and the same may be treated as a complaint. The Commission accepts the same.
The complainant had filed an RTI application on 05.09.2011, seeking the above information. On not receiving any reply from the CPIO within the prescribed time, he filed first appeal. The FAA did not dispose of the appeal. CPIO/Deputy Registrar vide letter dated 29.11.2011, replied to the complainant requesting him to inspect the relevant records. The complainant stated that he got the information that Shri S.K. Verma, Asstt. Registrar was taking a legal action against him, so to know details regarding the same, he had filed this RTI application dt. 05.09.2011, but there was no reply from the CPIO in response to his RTI application within prescribed time and on 29.11.2011, he received a reply wherein inspection of the relevant record was offered to him. Thereafter, he visited the office of Shri Mohinder Singh, Asstt. Registrar, three times but every time he was informed that the relevant file is not traceable and no file was made available to him for inspection. The complainant alleged that the concerned file was misplaced so that he could not inspect the same as it is clear that in the reply dated 29.11.2011, the CPIO has asked him to inspect the record and he can only call him for inspection if the record is available with him. The complainant further stated that the FAA heard him after 60 days of filing the first appeal and passed the order on 20.01.2012 and there is a delay of 190 days on the part of FAA and the CPIO and thus penal action u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act should be taken against the CPIO. The complainant further stated that both the FAA and the CPIO are in connivance with each other for knowingly and malafidely obstructing the information. The complainant also showed a letter to the Commission, wherein the President, CESTAT had rejected the application of Shri S.K. Verma for taking legal action against him.
The respondent stated that the letter which has been shown by the complainant is extraneous and outside the jurisdiction of the President as any such permission is granted by the Ministry and not by the President, CESTAT and that he cannot allow or reject any such application. The respondent further stated that since the information sought was related to him, therefore, he had recused himself from dealing with this RTI application. The respondent also stated that the allegation of the complainant that the concerned file was knowingly misplaced is incorrect as in the reply dated 29.11.2011, the then CPIO has clearly marked a copy of the same to the Administration Section, CESTAT with a request to make the concerned record ready for inspection and thus if the file is not traceable, then the CPIO is not responsible for the same and also the CPIO had no knowledge at the time of replying to the RTI application that the concerned file is available or not. The respondent also showed letters issued by the then CPIO, showing the efforts made by them to provide the information Interim Decision: 23.01.2015 After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission is of the view that the issue in this case is same as that of in file nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000781-YA and CIC/SS/A/2012/000791-YA, i.e, whether Shri S.K. Verma, CPIO was bound to comply with the FAA's order dt. 16.09.2011 or for that matter, the second order of the FAA dt. 08.11.2011, on the same RTI application, when his second appeal was pending before the Commission. Therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Commission is of the view that a common order for the same issue will do justice.
The Registry of this Bench is directed to put up the this file along with the remaining files of second appeals/complaints out of the 90 RTI applications, which have not been heard till date, before the Bench, latest by 25th February, 2015. Fresh notices for hearing will be sent to both the parties accordingly.
Decision: 09.09.2015 Written submission dt. 10.12.2014 by Shri S.K. Verma has been received in the Commission on 07.01.2015. It is stated therein that the allegations made by the complainant during the course of hearing that he was issued a charge-sheet for alleged corruption does not relate to the present case. He further stated that he was exonerated from that charge.
The Commission, in its interim order, had mentioned that the issue in the instant case is same as dealt in file nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000781-YA, CIC/SS/A/2012/000791-YA and CIC/SS/A/2012/000792-YA. The said order has been perused.
On perusal of record and averments by both the parties before the Commission, the allegation of malafide on the CPIO's part is not made out. Since, the information sought related to the CPIO, the latter recused himself from dealing with the RTI application. Further, the CPIO who replied to the RTI, invited the appellant for inspection of records in the administration branch while requesting the administration section to make those records available. During the hearing, the respondent also showed letters issued by the then CPIO for the same, indicating the efforts made to provide the information. Photocopies of 51 pages were also provided to the appellant. Hence, to prove the charge of malafide against the CPIO, it would be critical to establish that there was a collusion between the CPIO and PIO (Admn.) for denying/delaying/obstructing information to the appellant. Such a collusion has clearly not been proved during the hearing or on perusal of record.
No further action is called for on the part of the Commission in this complaint.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) 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.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Copy to:-
Public Information Officer under RTI Public Information Officer under RTI Assistant Registrar (Shri S. K. Verma), Assistant Registrar (Shri Naresh Kumar), Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Tribunal, West Block-2, R. K. Puram, West Block-2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110066.
New Delhi-110066.
Public Information Officer under RTI First Appellate Authority under RTI Assistant Registrar (Shri Mohinder Singh), Member (T), Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Tribunal, West Block-2, R. K. Puram, West Block-2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110066.
New Delhi-110066.
Shri R. K. Jain House No.-1512-B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg, WazirNagar, NewDeli-110003.