Central Information Commission
D K Bose vs Directorate General Of Goods And ... on 11 September, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DGSTX/A/2019/130072-BJ
Mr. D. K. Bose
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Assistant Commissioner, Cadre Control Authority
Office of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of CGST & CX
Delhi Zone, Cadre Controlling Authority
Central Revenue Building, I. P. Estate
New Delhi - 110109
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.09.2019
Date of Decision : 11.09.2019
Date of RTI application 01.03.2019
CPIO's response 12.04.2019
Date of the First Appeal 09.04.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 03.05.2019
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 25.06.2019
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the details of sportsperson recurred in Delhi Commissionerate during the last 20 years (1998-2018) against sports quota; sports quota vacancies generated during 1998 to 2018 (year-wise); number of Sportsperson (games-wise & year-wise) recruited against the vacancies generated during the above referred period; name of the disciplines as covered/played in Central Revenue Sports Board; number of sportsperson with their names & other details who were recruited or intended to be recruited, which were not covered / played during Central Revenue Sports Meet and reasons thereof, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.04.2019, provided a response in respect of point no. 01 as per available records. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 03.05.2019 while concurring with the response of the CPIO, directed him to provide replies within the stipulated time period as prescribed under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 1 of 6
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. D. K. Bose;
Respondent: Mr. Ephrem Horo, Asst. Comm.;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought which was generic in nature was not yet received by him. He alleged corruption and widespread irregularities in the recruitments made through sports quota on the ground that several athletes pursuing sporting disciplines which were not part of the Central Revenue Sports Meet were recruited by the Respondent Public Authority which was detrimental to the interest of the department since such athletes were not eligible to compete in the Sports Meet which defeated the purpose of recruitments through sports quota. In its reply, the Respondent at the outset tendered their unconditional apology for the delay in providing complete information in the matter and submitted that vide letter dated 12.04.2019 point no. 01 was replied. However, vide letter dated 28.08.2019, the information on the remaining points was provided. On being queried by the Commission regarding the reasons for the delay in providing the information, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondent. On being further questioned regarding the official responsible for the delay in replying to the RTI application, the Respondent submitted that Mr. Gagan Gupta, the then Assistant Commissioner and CPIO was the concerned official who has since Retired w.e.f., 30th June, 2019.
The Commission observed that the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates time limits in its various provisions relating to responding to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first appeal to ensure that a culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of the democracy gets established. This was recognised by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers.
It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
The Commission also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."Page 2 of 6
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
The Commission further observed that a clear, cogent and precise point wise information on the generic issues raised in the RTI application such as the Sports Quota vacancies generated during 1998 to 2018; number of sportspersons recruited against the vacancies created; name of disciplines as covered/ played in Central Revenue Sports Board, etc was not provided by the Respondent initially and that such generic information should be clearly spelt out by the Public Authority and disclosed on its website for the ease and convenience of all concerned. Thus 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 realised 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 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 Page 3 of 6 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."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
Page 4 of 6"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that complete point wise information had not been provided by the Respondent in the matter, which is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission thus instructs Mr. Ephrem Horo, Asst. Comm and CPIO, O/o the Pr. Commissioner of CGST and CX, Delhi Zone to provide complete point wise information and show cause why action should not be taken under the provisions of the Act for this misconduct and negligence within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of the compliance report be submitted to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 11.09.2019
Page 5 of 6
Copy to:
1. Chairman, CBIC, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi -
110001;
2. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sawhney, Pr. Chief Commissioner of CGST & CX, Delhi Zone, Cadre Controlling Authority, Central Revenue Building, I. P. Estate, New Delhi - 110109 Page 6 of 6