Central Information Commission
R. K. Jain vs Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate ... on 26 May, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CESAT/A/2018/162555
Shri R K Jain ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, O/o the Customs ... ितवादी /Respondent
Excise & Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, West Block, No. 2, R K
Puram, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16.06.2016 FA : 30.08.2016 SA : 16.10.2018
CPIO : 26.08.2016 FAO : 17.05.2018 Hearing : 14.05.2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Block, No. 2, R K Puram, New Delhi seeking information on six points, including, inter-alia: (i) Please provide copies of dak diary required inward/outward of Shri M.V. Ravindran, HOD from 4-3-2016 till the date of providing the information; (ii) Please provide copies of daily diary & File Movement Register of Shri M.V. Ravindran, HOD from 4-3-2016 till the date of providing the information; (iii) Please provide copies of the Page 1 of 5 communications received from the Hon'ble Members of the CESTAT from all stations except application/request for leave with relevant file Nos., etc.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 30.08.2016 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 17.05.2018 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second app
3. Appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
4. The appellant attended the hearing through video-call. The respondent, Shri Rajendra Prasad, CPIO attended the hearing through video-call.
5. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent on point no. (f) of his RTI application dated 16.06.2016. The respondent has wrongly stated that the information sought is confidential in nature. The appellant further stated that the First Appellate Authority order is illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction as it has been passed and issued in the end of July, 2018, when the First Authority in CESTAT New Delhi was Mrs. Rachna Gupta as per order F. No. 27 (28) /CESTAT / Admn / 2005 - Part-Il dated 18-5-2018. The said order has been antedated to gain jurisdiction and this is evident from the fact that the order was received by the appellant on 30-7-2018 when Shri Padmanabhan was not the First Appellate Authority. Moreover, the FAA order was uploaded on CESTAT website on 13-8-2018 when Shri Padmanabhan was not the First Appellate Authority at CESTAT, Delhi. The appellant further stated his first Appeal dated 30-8-2016 was heard by the First Appellate Authority on 18-11-2016 and on conclusion of the hearing, the order was reserved. Thereafter the First Appellate Authority did not passed any order for more than 20 months and finally after 20 months and 10 days, Page 2 of 5 the appellant on 30-7-2018 received the order dated 17-5-2018. As per the provisions of section 19 of the RTI Act, the First Appellate Authority is required to pass the Appellate Order within 45 days of filing of appeal. The appellant further stated that the CPIO have erred in denying the information on point no. (f) on the ground that the information sought relates to official matters and official communications, which have been made in "official confidence", therefore, it is not disclosable under Section 8 of the RTI Act, as per the commentary contained in para 25 & 26 in the publication of India Law House. The CPIO have not indicated under which clause of Section 8 of the RTI Act, they are claiming exemption. Moreover, the contents of the commentary of a private publisher cannot be a basis for denial of information, particularly when the said commentary is based on the cases decided prior to the RTI regime i.e. 2005. The FAA has also ignored the provisions of Section 22 of the RTI Act, which gives overriding effect to the RTI Act over all other enactment Rules & Regulations.
6. The respondent reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and FAA and stated that the information sought by the appellant on point no. (f) is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that their office is quasi- judicial authority and it is confidential in nature.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties after perusal of records, observes that the appellant is aggrieved with the reply given by the respondent on point no. (f) of the RTI application dated 16.06.2016. The Commission observed that the respondent has not taken any specific plea/exemption clause in denying the information on point no. (f) of the RTI Act. The respondent has only mentioned that the information sought relates to official matters and official communications, which have been made in "official confidence", therefore, it is not disclosable under Section 8 of the RTI Act, as per the commentary contained in para Page 3 of 5 25 & 26 in the publication of India Law House. The CPIO have not indicated under which clause of Section 8 of the RTI Act, they are claiming exemption. Moreover, the contents of the commentary of a private publisher cannot be a basis for denial of information, particularly when the said commentary is based on the cases decided prior to the RTI regime i.e. 2005. The CPIO and neither the FAA have considered Section 22 of the RTI Act. The Commission further observed that the FAA order is antedated and there is a delay in deciding first appeal of the appellant.
8. In view of the above observations and discussions, the Commission directs the respondent to give a revised specific reply on point no. (f) of the RTI application 16.06.2016 to the appellant claiming the specific exemption clause of Section 8 of the RTI Act, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
9. The Administrative Authority is advised to review the functioning of the First Appellate Authority and ensure that such mistake does not happen in future. The CPIO is directed to place this order before the competent authority.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क / Date:-14.05.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#ािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, O/o the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Block, No. 2, R K Puram, New Delhi - 110066.
2. Shri R K Jain, Page 5 of 5