Central Information Commission
Sadhuram vs Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, ... on 24 March, 2020
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/CCEDL/A/2018/141345-BJ
Mr. Sadhuram
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Office of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise (DZ)
C R Building, I P Estate, New Delhi - 110002
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.03.2020
Date of Decision : 23.03.2020
Date of RTI application 01.04.2018
CPIO's response 05.04.2018 /
14.05.2018
Date of the First Appeal 13.05.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 29.06.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the action taken on the application filed/submitted by him on 15.03.2018, etc The CPIO, vide its reply dated 05.04.2018 transferred the application to the concerned CPIO. Dissatisfied due to non receipt of any response from the concerned CPIO within the stipulated time, the Appellant approached the FAA. The First Appeal was also transferred to the concerned FAA on 14.05.2018. The reply of the CPIO/ Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.Page 1 of 4
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. K. K. Jain, Assistant Commissioner and Mr. Yashu Hero, Inspector;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Commission was in receipt of an email from the Appellant dated 05.03.2020 wherein it was submitted that he is out of station right now and indulged in some very urgent, indispensable and unavoidable home affairs, hence being so distant from his place, with this short notice/time, it was very difficult for him to arrange any authorized representative at this juncture. Further, he submitted that it is very unsafe for an informer to come directly as there is always a life threat to the informer. Furthermore, it was requested to the Commission to decide the instant case considering the financial hardships of the informer and the long waited expectation from the central excise deptt. for the last 32 Months (2.7 years) and further requested to direct the Central Excise deptt. to take action and disburse the requisite reward. In its reply, the Respondent while reiterating the submissions of the CPIO / FAA submitted that to process reward claim of the Appellant was presently under consideration of the Reward Committee in its meeting held on 15.05.2019. However, no decision was finalized in the said meeting and it shall be placed in the next meeting as and when convened. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 05.03.2020 wherein it was submitted that in reference to 2nd Appeal filed by the Appellant, reply of RTI was called from Assistant Commissioner (AE), Reward Cell on 02.03.2020 and the reply had been received from Assistant Commissioner (AE), Reward Cell, which was reiterated as under:-
"Further Assistant Commissioner (AE), CGST, Delhi West has requested to Assistant Commissioner (AE), CGST, North for supply of AE-1 along with sealed cover in the instant case, which is basic documents of sanction of reward to the informer. As the said reward file was received from Central Tax, Delhi North Commissionerate. The copy of the same is still awaited. Further, the reward sanction and disbursal proceedings, in the instant case are under process and Assistant Commissioner (AE) Delhi West is personally following the procurement of AE-1 along with sealed cover."
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"Page 2 of 4
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
With regard to disclosure of information in Appellant's own case, the Commission observed that 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 had held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.Page 3 of 4
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, the Commission directs him to furnish the outcome of the Reward Committee Meeting to the Appellant as and when it gets completed. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (नबमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.िास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 23.03.2020 Page 4 of 4