Central Information Commission
R S Sravan Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs And ... on 27 December, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CECHZ/A/2018/611067-BJ
Mr. R. S. Sravan Kumar
.... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO/ Nodal Officer
O/o the Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise
Hyderabad Zone, Kendriya Shulk Bhawan, L. B. Stadium Road
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.12.2019
Date of Decision : 27.12.2019
Date of RTI application 11.04.2017
CPIO's response 22.06.2017
Date of the First Appeal 20.06.2017
(mentioned in 2nd
Appeal)
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the list of top ten service tax payers under the head Commercial Training or Coaching Centre under the jurisdiction of Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad Zone (including Commissionarates) for past 5 years (i.e. FY 2011-12 to FY 2016-17) year wise.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide letter dated 22.06.2017 replied with the remark 'NIL'. The Order of FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.Page 1 of 6
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. P. Shyam, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO and Ms. Khusboo Ratre, CPIO & Assistant Commissioner through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. K. Anil Kumar, Network Engineer NIC studio at Hyderabad confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent at the outset tendered their unconditional apology for the delay in responding to the RTI application and submitted that since the information sought was not maintained by their department, the application was transferred to the Division offices on 09.04.2018 that had given the reply to the Appellant vide several letters referred in their written submission. The Respondent attributed the delay to the non-operational login account of the nodal officer/ CPIO, CCO, Hyderabad from 30.06.2016 including during the period involved in respect of the subject application and the account was also blocked. It was only on 26.03.2018 by using a new password and login id received from helpdesk of rtionline.gov.in, the account was logged in and necessary action initiated to dispose off the pending applications/ appeals found therein including the application and first appeal of the subject applicant. On being queried by the Commission regarding disclosure of information pertaining to top ten service tax payers under the head Commercial Training or Coaching Centre under the jurisdiction of Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad Zone (including Commissionarates) for past 5 years (i.e. FY 2011-12 to FY 2016-17) to the Parliament, if sought, no satisfactory response was provided by the Respondent.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 20.12.2019 wherein it was stated that the information sought had been provided to the Appellant by the concerned CPIO the details of which were mentioned in the tabulated format in the reply. It was also stated that the delay in furnishing the information was only due to reasons other than intentional delay or denial of information. Explaining the reasons for the delay in providing the information, the Respondent stated that the relevant login account of the nodal officer/ CPIO, CCO, Hyderabad was not operational from 30.06.2016 including during the period involved in respect of the subject application and the account was also blocked. It was only on 26.03.2018 by using a new password and login id received from helpdesk of rtionline.gov.in, the account was logged in and necessary action initiated to dispose off the pending applications/ appeals found therein including the application and first appeal of the subject applicant. The reason for the said non operational status of the account whether due to technical glitches, etc was not known/ available on record. Though not directly relevant for the delay caused, it was stated that the period in question coincided with the rollout of GST w.e.f., 01.01.2017 involving inter alia major jurisdictional and intra organizational changes, consequential relocations apart from multiple time bound activities entrusted to Departmental Officers at all levels for ensuring smooth and hassle free transition to and implementation of new scheme of taxation. In view of the above, while admitting that there was substantial delay in furnishing of information the same appeared to be without control and not with an intention to delay/ deny the information.
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:
Page 2 of 6"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."
A reference can also made 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."
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 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed ".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of Block Development Officer, Paonta Sahib vs. State Information Commission and Anr., CWP No. 6072 of 2012 dated 27.06.2018 held as under:
"9. It is vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from vice of arbitrariness and, therefore, should be quashed and set aside. It was further argued that the petitioner on receipt of the application had transferred it to the concerned authorities and, therefore, there was no lapse on his part. He would also urge that the petitioner did not know the intricacies of the RTI Act and, therefore, he could not have been penalized.
10. I find no merit in the contention put-forth by the petitioner. It is more than settled that ignorance of law can be no excuse. Once the petitioner is designated as PIO, then all the more he is deemed to have knowledge and even otherwise the least that was required of him was to have acquainted himself thoroughly with the provisions of the Page 3 of 6 RTI Act. Therefore, the explanation as sought to be put-forth by the petitioner at this stage clearly reflects the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner. The only reasonable explanation for the cause of delay can be accepted and not lame excuses."
The Commission thus 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.
The Commission also took note of the proviso to Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 wherein it has been stated that "..the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State legislature shall not be denied to any person..." In this context, the Commission drew reference to The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Civil Writ Petition No.1338 of 2011 ( M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. The Central Information Commission and others) (Date of Decision:
24.01.2011) wherein it was held as under:
18. "In the same sequence, proviso to Section 8 of the Act envisaged that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or the State Legislature, shall not be denied to any person.
19. A co-joint reading of the aforesaid provisions will leave no manner of doubt that every information is not exempted. Only those informations, pertaining to commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, the information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the authorities are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, are exempted and not otherwise.
20.... Moreover, the CIC was satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Since the information sought cannot be denied to the Parliament or the State Legislature, so, the same cannot also be denied to respondent No.2, as contemplated in the proviso to section 8 of the Act."
A reference can also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as under: "Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the Page 4 of 6 allegations of misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter of public interest.
Moreover, the Commission observed that in a similar matter in Appeal No. CIC/CECHZ/A/2018/130414-BJ dated 27.11.2019, where the Respondent took a similar plea the Commission had held as under:
"Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission directs the Chairman, CBIC, New Delhi, to depute an officer of an appropriate seniority to examine the matter and fix accountability and responsibility on the delinquent officer for not replying to the RTI application within the stipulated time limit within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission and the Appellant. It is also instructed that the procedure for allotment of password for accessing and replying to the RTI applications should be streamlined forthwith to avoid inconvenience to the public at large."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of the decision of the Commission in CIC/CECHZ/A/2018/130414-BJ dated 27.11.2019, the Commission directs the Chairman, CBIC, New Delhi, to depute an officer of an appropriate seniority to examine the matter and fix accountability and responsibility on the delinquent officer for not replying to the RTI application within the stipulated time limit within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission and the Appellant. It is also instructed that a robust and effective mechanism be evolved for digital transmission of information and necessary logistic support services be strengthened to ensure its efficient implementation. Action taken in the matter may kindly be intimated to the Appellant with a copy endorsed to the Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (नबमल जुल्का) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.िास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 27.12.2019 Page 5 of 6 Copy to:
1. Chairman, CBIC, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001;Page 6 of 6