Central Information Commission
Mr.R K Jain vs Department Of Revenue on 13 March, 2013
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
Central Information Commission
2 ry] foxa 'c' / 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing
vxLr ØkfUr Hkou / August Kranti Bhavan
Hkhdkth dkek Iysl / Bhikaji Cama Place
ubZ fnYyh 110066 / New Delhi - 110066
F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477
Dated: 13.03.2013
No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 : Shri R K Jain Vs. CESTAT No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001477: Shri S K Verma, Asstt.
Registrar & CPIO Vs. CESTAT ORDER The facts of these appeals are that Shri R K Jain had filed 90 RTIapplications before the CPIO, Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi during the period from 06.06.2011 to 04.08.2011.
2. In his reply dated Nil, the CPIO Shri S K Verma interalia, stated as under:
(i) He received the following 90 undisposed RTI applications from his predecessor Shri Mohinder Singh, Assistant Registrar & the then CPIO, CESTAT;
S. Applicatio Date of S. Applicatio Date of No. n RTI No. n RTI I D No. I D No. Application Application
01. ID 06 10.06.2011 02. ID 06 06.06.2011 98/11 99/11
03. ID 06 06.06.2011 04. ID 06 08.06.2011 100/11 101/11
05. ID 06 10.06.2011 06. ID 06 10.06.2011 102/11 103/11
07. ID 06 10.06.2011 08. ID 06 10.06.2011 104/11 105/11 F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 1 of 14
09. ID 06 10.06.2011 10. ID 06 10.06.2011 106/11 107/11
11. ID 06 13.06.2011 12. ID 06 13.06.2011 108/11 109/11
13. ID 06 13.06.2011 14. ID 06 13.06.2011 110/11 111/11
15. ID 06 13.06.2011 16. ID 06 13.06.2011 112/11 113/11
17. ID 06 18.06.2011 18. ID 06 18.06.2011 114/11 115/11
19. ID 06 18.06.2011 20. ID 06 18.06.2011 116/11 117/11 S.No. Application Date of S.No Application Date of I D No. RTI . I D No. RTI Application Application
21. ID 06 18.06.2011 22. ID 06 18.06.2011 118/11 119/11
23. ID 06 18.06.2011 24. ID 06 18.06.2011 120/11 121/11
25. ID 06 20.06.2011 26. ID 06 20.06.2011 122/11 123/11
27. ID 06124 21.06.2011 28. ID 06 21.06.2011 /11 125/11
29. ID 06 21.06.2011 30. ID 06 21.06.2011 126/11 127/11
31. ID 06 22.06.2011 32. ID 06 22.06.2011 128/11 129/11
33. ID 06 22.06.2011 34. ID 06 22.06.2011 130/11 131/11
35. ID 06 22.06.2011 36. ID 06 22.06.2011 132/11 133/11
37. ID 06 24.06.2011 38. ID 06 24.06.2011 134/11 135/11
39. ID 06 24.06.2011 40. ID 06 24.06.2011 136/11 137/11
41. ID 06 24.06.2011 42. ID 06 01.07.2011 138/11 139/11
43. ID 06 01.07.2011 44. ID 06 01.07.2011 140/11 141/11
45. ID 06 01.07.2011 46. ID 06 04.07.2011 142/11 143/11
47. ID 06 04.07.2011 48. ID 06 05.07.2011 144/11 145/11
49. ID 06 06.07.2011 50. ID 06 07.07.2011 146/11 147/11 F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 2 of 14
51. ID 06 07.07.2011 52. ID 06 07.07.2011 148/11 149/11
53. ID 06 08.07.2011 54. ID 06151 08.07.2011 150/11 /11
55. ID 06152 08.07.2011 56. ID 06153 21.06.2011 /11 /11
57. ID 06154 18.07.2011 58. ID 06 16.07.2011 /11 155/11
59. ID 06 18.07.2011 60. ID 06 18.07.2011 156/11 157/11
61. ID 06 18.07.2011 62. ID 06 18.07.2011 158/11 159/11
63. ID 06 18.07.2011 64. ID 06 18.07.2011 160/11 161/11
65. ID 06 18.07.2011 66. ID 06 19.07.2011 162/11 163/11
67. ID 06 20.07.2011 68. ID 06 20.07.2011 164/11 165/11
69. ID 06 20.07.2011 70. ID 06 21.07.2011 166/11 167/11
71. ID 06 21.07.2011 72. ID 06 27.07.2011 168/11 169/11
73. ID 06 27.07.2011 74. ID 06 28.07.2011 170/11 171/11
75. ID 06 28.07.2011 76. ID 06 28.07.2011 172/11 173/11
77. ID 06 28.07.2011 78. ID 06 29.07.2011 174/11 175/11
79. ID 06 29.07.2011 80. ID 06 29.07.2011 176/11 177/11
81. ID 06 29.07.2011 82. ID 06 01.08.2011 178/11 179/11
83. ID 06 01.08.2011 84. ID 06 02.08.2011 180/11 181/11
85. ID 06 02.08.2011 86. ID 06 02.08.2011 182/11 183/11
87. ID 06 02.08.2011 88. ID 06 03.08.2011 184/11 185/11
89. ID 06 02.08.2011 90. ID 06 04.08.2011 186/11 187/11
(ii) He perused all these applications individually and decided to dispose of them together by passing a common order.
F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 3 of 14
(iii) The informationseeker was habitual in filing frivolous, frequent, identical, unspecific, and repeated applications on one point and voluminous applications to get the information under RTI Act.
(iv) The CESTAT had already given him (Shri Jain) information running into more than 2 lakh pages and already allowed more than 200 inspections during the last 3 years and provided him the maximum information sought by him.
(v) After furnishing the replies to the RTIapplications, the appellant was frequently writing several letters pointing out the deficiencies in the replies given by CPIO, instead of approaching Appellate Authority.
(vi) The office was running with 70% of the total staff strength and due to unwarranted letters, repeated applications/reminders for voluminous information, the normal working of the office, particularly judicial work of the Tribunal, was adversely affected.
(vii) It was disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and further detrimental to the safety and preservation of the records in the Tribunal;
(viii) The appellant was running a business of publication of Excise Law Times and is the editor of the same, wherein he publishes articles against the President, VicePresident and Members of the Tribunal, F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 4 of 14 questioning the judicial orders passed by them, raising queries on the judgments passed by the Benches and enclosed extracts / copies of such publications.
(ix) The appellant was the copyright holder of the said magazine and thus, running a commercial business for gaining the financial and personal gains and earning huge amounts, which is against the spirit of the RTI Act and also gross misuse of the information gathered by him from the public authority under the RTI Act.
(x) He was getting all the information by way of declaring himself as individual for getting the information, whereas he was using such information for printing in a journal, for which he himself is the editor.
(xi) He also referred the Commission's Order in Appeal No. 23/IC(A)/2006 in the matter of Kishur J Aggarwal Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., wherein it was held:
"The Commission is in possession of letters which the appellant, Mr. Kishur J. Aggarwal, EditorinChief of a number of Daily Papers / Magazines has written to almost all the PSUs for eliciting their support for promotion of his business interests. His Company, named as NUURRIE Media Ltd. has launched thirty nine (39) websites covering the activities of all sections of the society. He has been asking for the favour of carrying out advertisements in his magazines/ websites. Clearly, his modus operandi is to use RTI for influencing PSUs for promotion of his business, rather than serving the social interests such as ensuring transparency and efficiency in functioning of PSUs. This is indeed a blatant misuse of RTI Act which ought to be discouraged. As an enlightened F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 5 of 14 citizen, every information seeker should resort to RTI Act responsibly, as most people are doing and reaping the benefits of this powerful Act."
(xii) The Hon'ble CIC had reiterated its view in the matter of Kishur J. Aggarwal V/s UCO Bank on 10.04.2006, {24/IC(A)/2006} (F. No. 11/78/2006/CIC).
The CPIO observed that these applications were having the identical facts and circumstances and by following the precedents mentioned above, he dismissed all the applications filed by Shri R K Jain.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the RTI appellant Shri R K Jain filed his firstappeal before the First Appellate Authority, CESTAT. The FAA passed a detailed Order No. 66 of 2011 dated 08.11.2011 and inter alia, observed that the period of 30 days for furnishing the replies to the applicant had expired in many cases and the applicant had also filed appeals against such deemed refusals and a number of appeals had already been examined and orders passed on each such appeal. Thus, though appeal was in respect of the rejection order dealing with 90 applications, in essence, it appeared to be relating to only about 29 applications, because in respect of other applications appeal against deemed refusals had been heard and appropriate orders passed. The appellant should have given a correct list of Applications which had not yet been decided in appeal proceedings with reference to each application. Para Nos. 8 to 11 of the FAA's order are reproduced below:
F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 6 of 14 "Para 8: I have considered arguments on both sides. The matter whether CPIO could have issued a refusal order when an appeal was already filed with the Appellate authority is just a legal discourse. What is required is to provide information asked for and if it cannot be provided to furnish reasons for it. That has already been done in such cases by passing individual orders in such appeals.
Para 9: I do find that the Applicant is in the habit of filing innumerable RTI applications crippling the normal functioning of CESTAT by grabbing resources needed for discharge of the statutory functions of CESTAT. He is also in the habit of publishing information so obtained as Tit Bits in his journal is no evidence suggesting that this journal is selling on account of such Tit Bits. When I consider the whole matter as per the provisions under RTI Act there is no justification to reject all applications without any scrutiny, as is done in the impugned order. The claim of the Appellant that all the information sought under these applications relate to transparency, accountability or prevention of corruption appears to be a far fetched claim. However stalling of information sought gives an impression that CESTAT has something to hide which impression has to be avoided and I am taking decision in this appeal primarily keeping this approach in mind.
Para 10: The decisions of the Higher Courts are that when an Act is in place, the organizaions concerned have to put in place the necessary resources for complying with the provisions of the Act and lack of resources cannot be a reason for refusal to furnish information.. But is remains a fact that such resources do not come easily. Ultimately these requirements and constreaints will find some equilibrium in course of time which may involve reduction in disposal of statutory work of the CESTAT.
Para 11: To deal specifically with the matters at hand, notwithstanding all the constraints, CIO has to examine each of the applications and furnish information where available. Where information is not available in the form in which it is asked, the F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 7 of 14 position may be informed to the Applicant. In any application is to be rejected for any reason specified in section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act the reason has to specified and orders should passed independently in respect of each application. CPIO has to ensure that each order is numbered and dated."
4. In the mater, the appellant Shri Jain filed his 2nd appealcumcomplaint petition dated 17.01.2012, which was registered in the Commission vide Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802.
5. The CPIO Shri S K Verma, Assistant Registrar & CPIO, CESTAT also filed an appeal on 17.02.2012 challenging the order dated 08.11.2011 of the First Appellate Authority, CESTAT and an appeal was registered vide No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001477.
6. Pursuant to the Commission's Notice dated 15.06.2012, both these cases were came up for hearing on 09.07.2012. Shri Mohinder Singh, Asstt. Registrar and the former CPIO Shri S K Verma and RTIapplicant Shri R K Jain were present during the hearing. Shri S K Verma submitted a written submission before the Commission stating that since these two appeals contain law points, he would like to contest these cases by an Advocate on his behalf and to this effect the proposal for appointment of an Advocate had been approved by the Public Authority viz., CESTAT, and the proposal had been referred to the Ministry of Law and Justice for hiring an Advocate. Since the approval of the Ministry was still awaited, he could not hire an Advocate. He therefore, requested for adjournment of hearing.
F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 8 of 14
7. The Commission asked both the parties to prepare a list of all these 90 RTIapplications filed by Shri R K Jain showing the latest status of the cases such as, details of the subsequent 1st appeals filed by Shri Jain before the FAA, the orders passed by the FAA in each case, the compliance made by the CPIO, etc. etc. The matter was therefore, adjourned.
8. None of the parties submitted the desired list as asked by the Commission during the hearing on 09.07.2012. However, pursuant to the Commission's Notice dated 21.09.2012, these appeals were heard again on 19.10.2012, wherein Shri R K Jain, Shri S K Verma, Asstt. Registrar & CPIO and Shri Naresh Kumar, Dy. Registrar, CESTAT were present.
9. The Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001477 was taken up first. The CPIO Shri S K Verma submitted a written request for further adjournment of hearing on the following grounds:
I) Ministry of Law & Justice had turned down his request for engagement of an Advocate and he had received the communication on that day only. He was now trying to engage a private counsel and it required some more time and he was not prepared for hearing.
ii) The another respondent Shri Mohinder Singh, Asstt. Registrar and the former CPIO was presently posted at Ahmadabad and the notice could not be served to him.
F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 9 of 14
10. Shri R K Jain opposed the request of the CPIO for seeking adjournment for the 2nd time. He also stated that if the CPIO had made up his mind for seeking adjournment, he should have informed him well before the hearing. In any case, the CPIO agreed to participate in the hearing.
11. During the hearing, Shri S K Verma, Assistant Registrar & CPIO stated as under:
i) The appellant was in the habit of filing numerous RTIapplications on the same subject crippling the working of the CESTAT.
ii) Information so obtained was misused by Shri Jain for commercial a benefit which is against the soul and spirit of the RTI Act.
iii) Shri Jain was able to sell his magazines only because he publishes the articles on the basis of the information obtained under the RTI Act.
iv) The Commission in the case of Mr. Kishur J Agarwal had held that the informationseeker was misusing the information for commercial purpose for influencing others in getting advertisements, and such person was not entitled to get information under the RTI Act.
v) Shri Jain was also using the information for writing critical comments on the President and members of the CESTAT and thus, Shri Jain had been misusing the RTI Act.
12. Shri R K Jain pleaded that the CPIO's reply was un dated and he passed a common order in respect of his all the 90 RTIapplications. Shri Jain also stated as under:
i) He had been filing RTIapplications before the CPIO, CESTAT for public good and in public interest with a F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 10 of 14 view to contain the irregularities, malfunctioning, corruption in public institutions like, CESTAT.
ii) He is the editor of two law journals for nearly four decades. He had been publishing the magazine for more than last 40 years when the RTIAct was not even in existence.
iii) His journals were acknowledged by the Department of Revenue / CESTAT etc. and the higher officers refer his journals in dealing with the complicated cases.
iv) In past, the various higher authorities, including office of the Hon'ble Prime Minister; Secretary, Department of Revenue; Advisor, Economic Administration Reform Commission; Committee on Direct Taxes; Technical Study Group on Central Excise Tariff of Department of Revenue; etc. etc. had sought his advice / opinion / comments on various issues like, 'revenue decline', 'rationalization and simplification of central excise procedure'; 'Trade Industry and general public';
v) He was awarded "Certificate of Merit" in January, 2011 from the World Customs Organization on the occasion of the International Customs Day for rendering exceptional service to the international Customs community.
vi) His present case was entirely different from the case of Mr. Kishur J. Aggarwal as was referred by the CPIO.
Mr. Aggarwal was EditorinChief of a number of Daily Papers / Magazines and he had written letters to almost all the PSUs for eliciting their support for promotion of his business interests. His Company, named as NUURRIE Media Ltd. had launched thirtynine (39) websites covering the activities of all sections of the society and he had been asking for the favour of carrying out advertisements in his magazines/ websites. Therefore, his modus operandi was to use RTI for influencing PSUs for promotion of his business, rather than serving the social interests such as ensuring transparency and efficiency in functioning of PSUs. As such, Mr. Kishur J. Aggarwal case does not applicable to his case at all.
F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 11 of 14
vii) With regard to CESTAT's providing him (Shri Jain) information running into more than 2 lakh pages and allowing more than 200 inspections during the last 3 years, CPIO did not produce any evidence to this effect.
viii) The FAA directed the CPIO to examine each of the 90 applications; provide information wherever available; if the information was not available in the form it was asked for, the applicant be informed; independent order in respect of each application be passed and each order be numbered and dated. Therefore, the CPIO be directed to comply with the FAA's order.
ix) It has come to his notice that in respect of certain cases, the CPIO Shri S K Verma had decided to issue the 3rdparty notices while dealing with the RTI applications, but he never issued third party notices and passed the Order dismissing his all the RTI applications.
x) CPIO therefore, deliberately, malafidely and persistently denied the information and dismissed his 90 application without considering each of them and without any reasonable cause. Therefore, the appeal filed by Shri S K Verma, Assistant Registrar & CPIO be rejected. Both the CPIOs were liable for penalty under section 20(1) and recommendations for disciplinary action under section 20(2) of the RTI Act.
13. Both the parties were again advised to submit the desired list of the RTIapplication with relevant details, latest by 20.11.2012 so that appropriate order could be passed in the matter or if required, the matter could be fixed for further hearing.
14. Despite oral instructions again during he hearing on 19.10.2012, the CPIO Shri S K Verma, Assistant Registrar F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 12 of 14 failed to provide the requisite list. Shri Jain however, filed a statement on 14.11.2012. The Commission felt that it can not wait indefinitely and therefore, decided that on the basis of material, including written submissions of the parties, as available in the file and the oral submissions made by the parties during the hearings, the matter be disposed of.
15. On perusal of the material available in the file, The Commission is of the view that there is no merit in the appeal filed by Shri S K Verma, Asstt. Registrar [ Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001477 ] against the Order dated 08.11.2011 of the First Appellate Authority. The same is therefore, rejected and the CPIO is directed to comply with Para 11 of the FAA's order dated 08.11.2011, within 6 weeks of the receipt of this order.
16. The appeal filed by Shri R K Jain [Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 ] is also disposed of with the directions given in para 15 above.
Sd/ (Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 13 of 14 Authenticated true copy:
Sd/ (D C Singh) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Copy to:
1. Shri S K Verma, Asstt. Registrar & CPIO, Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Block 2, R K Puram, NEW DELHI - 110 066
2. The First Appellate Authority Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Block 2, R K Puram, NEW DELHI - 110 066.
3. Shri R. K. Jain, No. 1512B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg, Wazir Nagar, NEW DELHI - 110 003 F. Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477: R K Jain CESTAT Page 14 of 14