Central Information Commission
Varun Khanna vs Reserve Bank Of India on 5 June, 2025
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/RBIND/A/2024/622274
Varun Khanna ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India,
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.02.2024 FA : 08.03.2024 SA : 02.05.2024
CPIO : 06.03.2024 FAO : 10.04.2024 Hearing : 03.06.2025
Date of Decision: 04.06.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. As per information available on record please provide list of the number of shipping bills / softex which are captured in E/IDPMs against IE Code 1214000959 and the status of which is still open/ pending status and not closed, till the date of providing information.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-Page 1 of 5
"What is being sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 10.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.05.2024.
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Pratheeba Manickam, Assistant General Manager and Ms. Devi S Hari, Legal Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that initially the information sought had been denied by the CPIO u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act as they were not aware that the appellant was one of the directors of M/s Khanna Impex (firm) regarding which information was sought. Further, in first appeal, the appellant provided the IEC certificate issued to the firm by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) but no authority letter from other Directors was submitted. A written submission dated Nil of the respondent is reproduced as under;-
"1. That the appellant, Shri Varun Khanna, vide RTI application no. RBIND/R/E/24/00971 dated February 07, 2024 (Annexure - A) had sought information about Shipping Bills (SBs) / Softex pertaining to an entity having Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) 1214000959
2. In response, the appellant was informed vide letter dated March 06, 2024 (Annexure B), that the information sought was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
3 Subsequently, the appellant preferred first appeal bearing no. RBIND/A/E/24/00218 dated March 08, 2024 (Annexure - C) claiming that the IEC Page 2 of 5 belonged to one M/s Khanna Impex (firm) and the appellant was the authorized partner of the firm. In support of these claims, the appellant only provided the IEC certificate issued to the firm by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).
4 The First Appellate Authority (FAA), in his order dated April 10, 2024 (Annexure -D), observed that the appellant clarified about his partnership in the firm only at the appellate stage. Further, the appellant had not provided any authority letter on behalf of the other partners to establish his authority for seeking information pertaining to the firm under the provisions of RTI Act. Therefore, the FAA found no ambiguity in the CPIO's reply and dismissed the appeal.
5 In this second appeal, the appellant has, contested that the CPIO and the FAA have failed to understand that the information sought is not in context to any third party as the information seeker is authorized partner of the firm and holds authority letter from other partners and that exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 has been wrongly applied The appellant has averred that no opportunity of personal hearing was given by FAA and that a review filed with FAA was not replied to. The appellant has prayed for furnishing the information.
6 As regards the averment that no opportunity of personal hearing was given by FAA it is humbly submitted that the provisions of RTI Act do not contemplate a mandatory personal hearing to be given to the appellant by the First Appellate Authority However, the contentions/grounds of the appellant contained in the appeal had been taken into consideration, while passing the FAA order. Further, after the dismissal of the First Appeal the appellant has filed a review of the decision of FAA which has not been considered, as, such a procedure is neither statutorily contemplated nor a power to review has been conferred on the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act.
7 It is humbly submitted that as per of Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005, "third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for information. In Page 3 of 5 the instant case, the information seeker was Shri Varun Khanna, while the information being sought pertained to M/s Khanna Impex. Therefore, it is evident that in the context of the RTI application, the information sought pertained to a third party. When the appellant preferred the RTI application without mentioning that he has been authorized by the firm whose information he is seeking, the appellant has been duly treated as a third party vis-à-vis the partnership firm.
8. The appellant's claim that the firm was not a third party is based on the following two assertions: (a) The appellant is authorized partner of the firm, and
(b) the appellant holds authority letter from other partners of the firm. However, the CPIO was not made aware of these claims at the application stage. Hence, the CPIO's action was in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, even when the claim that the appellant was an authorized partner in the firm, was placed before the FAA, it was. neither supported by any documentary evidence nor the authority letter from other partners were provided to the FAA. Therefore, the FAA passed a reasoned order considering the information made available to the CPIO and the FAA by the appellant. The appellant is not entitled for any relief as against the CPIO or the FAA, as prayed for or otherwise. The present appeal, therefore, is without merit and deserves to be dismissed."
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has denied the information u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act as they are not aware whether the appellant is one of the directors of M/s Khanna Impex (firm). However, the appellant produced the IEC certificate issued to the firm by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) mentioning the appellant's name as signatory. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish a reply to the appellant, based on the genuineness of the documents submitted by the appellant, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of communication letter from the firm, under intimation to the Commission. With this observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 4 of 5Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी राम लंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 04.06.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Reserve Bank Of India, CPIO, Foreign Exchange Department, Central Office, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, P. O. Box No.-1055, Mumbai-400001 2 Varun Khanna Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)