Central Information Commission
Mrmanu Jain vs Cbec on 21 April, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place,
August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003224/KY
Appellant : Shri. Manu Jain
S-141, 3rd floor, Panchsheel
Park, New Delhi-110017
Public Authority : Department of Revenue
Central Revenue
New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 21/04/2014
Date of Decision : 21/04/2014
Presence:
Appellant : Sh. Manu Jain
CPIO : Sh. P. K. Manderna, ACPIO and Arun Bhardwaj, Inspector
FACTS:
1. Vide RTI application dated 23.03.2012 the appellant has sought information on 1 to 7 issues as contained in his Application.
2. CPIO reply dated 25.04.2012 has given the information to the appellant.
3. The first appeal was filed on 08.05.2012 as the desired information was not provided by the CPIO.
4. Vide order dated 08.06.2012, FAA upheld the decision of CPIO.
5. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 07.09.2012 are contained in the Memorandum of appeal.
6. HEARING Appellant as well as respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION During the hearing of the appeal, it is submitted by Sh. Manu Jain, appellant, that he has not been provided the required information on any issues of his RTI application dated 23.03.2012. However, it is rebutted by the respondents by stating that the required information, as sought for, was provided to the appellant vide their letter dated 25.04.2012. on queried by the Commission it is stated by Sh. P. K. Manderna, ACPIO, "no such information"
exists on the issues raised by the appellant in his RTI Application, in any office of the respondents located at anywhere in India.
It is to be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 23.03.2012, sought some information from the respondents on seven issues as contained therein. Respondents vide their response dated 25.04.2012, denied the required information by stating that such information, as sought for, does not exist in the records of this office. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 08.05.2012 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 08.06.2012, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
It is pertinent to mentioned here that appellant vide his RTI application (supra) has sought the required information i.e. copy of order granting approval for issue of show-cause-notice C.No. V(AE)20/Enq/26/09/1260 dated 18.05.2010 issued by CCE Delhi IV and copy of order granting approval for issue of adjudication order dated 02.09.2011 vide C.No. V(87)15/Commr/CE/25/2010/8164, passed in pursuance of show-cause-notice dated .....2 -2- 18.05.2010 (vide issue no. 1 & 2 of the RTI application). Similarly, against issue no. 3, copy of authorization order to conduct proceeding against M/s Bafna Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. From 09.11.2009 along with your confirmation that had been verified, there were "reasons to believe" to order for conducting for such proceedings etc. etc. By virtue of the nature of the issues raised above, it may be said for a moment that the required information may not be available in a particular branch of the respondent office. However, it can not be denied by saying that it does not exist, at all, especificaly, when the appellant has given the complete details of that particular information, sought for , which do pertain to respondent's office. Thus, the version of the respondents cannot be relied upon, so far, the law is concerned. In other words, the respondent's plea is not legally tenable.
The Commission heard the submissions made by appellant as well as respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; especificaly, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 23.03.2012, CPIO's response dated 25.04.2012, FAA's order dated 08.06.2012 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
The Commission is of the considered view that the appellant has been deprived deliberately the required information even after lapse of more than twenty five months periods. Thus, the respondents defeated "very object of the RTI Act 2005", for which, it was legislated by the Parliament of India in not providing the information to the appellant. In view of this, the Commission feels that the appellant's appeal deserves to be allowed in toto. Therefore, it is allowed in toto.
In view of the above, the respondents are hereby directed to provide the complete and categorical information, issue-wise, to the appellant as per his RTI application, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission. If need be, Section 5(4) of the RTI Act 2005 be also invoked in the matter.
In case, the respondents failed to provide the complete and categorical information, issue- wise, to the appellant, within the same time frame, appellant will be at liberty to move this Commission under Section 18 of RTI Act 2005 for imposing maximum penalty and even recommending for disciplinary proceeding against the erring officers of the Department of Revenue. Subject to these observations, appellant's appeal is hereby closed.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Copy of this Decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Authenticated true copy (K. L. Das) Deputy Registrar
1. Sh. P. K. Manderna, ACPIO, Department of Revenue Central Revenue Building, I P Estate New Delhi.
2. Shri. Manu Jain S-141, 3rd floor, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017