Central Information Commission
Shri Nirmal Solanki vs Customs Department on 5 February, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01237
Dated, the 05th February, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Nirmal Solanki
Respondents : Customs Department
This matter came up for hearing on 03.02.2009 in pursuance of Commission's notice dated 30.12.2008. Appellant was absent when called. Respondents were represented by Shri Pranaya Wahane, Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
2. Appellant's RTI-application dated 15.03.2008 reads as follows:-
"To, get/purchase Hard copies of Govt. Publications about Custom Act 1962 from the "Directorate of Publications, New Delhi. Please give me informations [sic] of the Section No. of the following
1. Inform me the Section No. of custom Act to prosecute smuggler who made offence in 1996-98.
2. Inform me the Section No. of custom act to prosecute the offender of misdeclaration of Import in 1996-98
3. Inform me the section No. of custom act to prosecute the offender of under value made in the import in 1996."
3. CPIO, through his communication dated 09.04.2008 and the Appellate Authority, through his decision dated 06.06.2008, declined to authorize disclosure of the requested information on the ground that the queries were general in nature and the information was available in the public domain being the Sections of the Customs Act, which is an enactment of the parliament approved by the President of India and is available to all those who wish to access the information contained in those Acts. What the respondents meant was that it is not open to an applicant to seek information regarding application of Sections of a given Act to a given case. This is beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
4. Appellant has questioned these conclusions of the respondents on the ground that the information solicited was regarding how specific Sections of an Act are applicable to a given situation, which, according to the appellant, the respondents were duty-bound to provide to him.
Page 1 of 2Decision:
5. I'm not in agreement with the appellant's surmise that even if the document is already in public domain, it was open to him to ask the public authority to inform him about which Sections of the Act that could be applicable to the scenario which the appellant would paint. If allowed, this variety of queries will convert public authorities to be unpaid consultants to the applicants, who would freely seek the former's advice about how specific Sections of Acts, Rules applied to specific situations. RTI Act doesn't enjoin disclosure of this variety of information. (Kamal C. Tiwari Vs. Ministry of Defence; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00360; Date of Decision: 23.11.2006 and Subhash Chandra Vs. Income Tax Department; Appeal Nos.CIC/AT/A/2007/00190 & F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00291; Date of Decision: 8.6.2007 and Aakash Aggarwal Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00446; Date of Decision: 18.12.2006). No responsibility can be cast on the respondents to reply to such queries.
6. In view of the above, I uphold the decisions of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority. Appeal rejected.
7. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Page 2 of 2