Central Information Commission
Mr.R K Jain vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 30 July, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000195
CIC/SS/C/2012/000227
CIC/SS/C/2012/000228
CIC/SS/C/2012/000243
CIC/SS/C/2012/000244
CIC/SS/C/2012/000245
CIC/SS/C/2012/000360
CIC/SS/C/2012/000365
CIC/SS/C/2012/000367
CIC/SS/C/2012/000368
(R. K. Jain vs. Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)
Dated 30th July, 2013
This is in continuation of this Commission's proceedings
dated 12.7.2013, which are reproduced below:-
"Appellant : R. K. Jain
Respondent : Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
(CESTAT)
Date of hearing : 12.7.2013
Date of decision : 12.7.2013
FACTS
The above cited 10 appeals have been filed by the appellant herein. These are being disposed of through a common order that follows.
2. The appellant is present in today's hearing, CESTAT is represented by Shri Naresh Kumar, Dy. Registrar (CPIO) and Shri S. K. Verma, Asst. Registrar (former CPIO). The case-wise position is as follows.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000195
3. Vide RTI application dated 16.8.2011, the appellant had sought the following information:-
"(A) Please provide copy of Transfer order dated 9.8.2011. Please intimate the date, time & mode of its dispatch to various benches. (B) Please provide copy of Reliving Order date 12.8.2011. Please intimate the date, time & mode of its dispatch to various benches.
(C ) Please provide copy of reliving report of S/Shri S.S. Kang, M.V. Ravindran, P.G. Chacko and M. Archna Wadhwa in view of above order.
(D) Please provide copy of joining report ofMs. Archna Wadhwa, Shri S. S. Kang, Shri M. V. Ravindran and Shri P. G. Chacko in view of above order.
(E) Please provide inspection of all records, documents, files and note- sheets relating to information sought in clause (A) to (D)."
4. Shri S. K. Verma, Asstt. Registrar, (CPIO) vide letter dated 28.9.2011 had offered inspection of relevant records on 30.10.2011. Aggrieved with the above decision, the appellant had filed the present proceedings before the Commission which has been registered as a Complaint. In my opinion, it should have been registered as an Appeal and not a Complaint as per the provisions of section 19 of the RTI Act.
5. Coming to the merits of the matter, the appellant submits that he had filed the RTI application on 18.8.2011. This should have been responded to within 30 days but it was responded to with a delay of 12 days. Furthermore, it is his contention that inspection should have been offered to him in a reasonable time frame, say, seven or eight days but it was offered with a gap of about a month which is against the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. The matter, however, does not end there. It is also his contention that he visited the concerned office on the appointed date i.e. 30.10.2011, but the CPIO was not available and he had not instructed anyone else to given him the inspection. It is, thus, his contention that no information whatsoever has been provided to him so far thereby defeating his right under the RTI Act.
6. To this, Shri Verma would respond that he had endorsed his letter dated 28.9.2011 to Shri Mohinder Singh AR (Admn.) to give inspection to the appellant for the appointed date but the latter does not appear to have done so.
7. In the premises, notices may be issued to Shri S. K. Verma and Shri Mohinder Singh, both ARs, to submit their explanations for not giving inspection of the relevant records to the appellant on the appointed date i.e. 30.10.2011, thereby causing detriment to the appellant u/s 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000227
8. In the RTI application dated 16.6.2011, the appellant had sought the following information:-
"(A) Please provide inspection of the Tour Diary pertaining to Mr. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Hon'ble President of the CESTAT, New Delhi.
(B) Please provide inspection of the Service Book of Mr. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar Hon'ble President of the CESTAT.
(C ) Please provide inspection of the personal file of Mr. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar. Hon'ble President of the CESTAT."
9. The CPIO did not respond to it at all. Thereupon, the appellant had filed the first appeal. The FAA, in his order dated 1.9.2011, had ordered the CPIO to give inspection of records relating to paras (b) & (c ). However, as regards para (a), the AA had taken the view that the requisite record was not being maintained.
10. During the hearing, the appellant submits that the AA's order was complied with by the CPIO on 16.1.2012 i.e. after a gap of 108 days. More importantly, he submits that the CPIO did not pass any order on his RTI application thereby violating the mandate of law.
11. On the other hand, Shri Verma submits that this very matter came up for hearing before the Bench of Smt. Sushma Singh, IC, who, in order dated 13.3.2013 in File Nos. CIC/SS/A/2012/000808 and CIC/SS/A/2012/001477, had disposed of the matter.
12. I have perused the said order and find that she is dealing with FAA's order dated 8.11.2011 which was passed in a different matter and not in the present case. In view of the above, notice may be issued to Shri Verma to submit his explanation on the following two counts:-
(a) Not responding to the RTI application as per law in the prescribed period of 30 days; &
(b) not complying with the AA's order in a reasonable time frame.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000228
13. In the RTI application dated 1.7.2011, the appellant had sought the following information:-
"(A) Copies of statement showing pendency, institution and disposal of appeals and stay applications and all other applications with year-wise breakup of applications by CESTAT benches from 18.4.2011 to 1.7.2011.
(B) Please provide state-wise breakup of pending appeals, Stay application and misc. application as on 1.7.2011. If information as on 1.7.2011 is not available the information available for any other period may be provided.
(C) Inspection of all correspondence received or sent to the Department of Revenue, MOF from 18.4.2011 to 30.6.2011 along with inspection of files in which they are contained or related to and a list of such correspondence."
14. The CPIO did not respond to the RTI application at all. Thereupon the appellant had filed the first appeal which was disposed of by FAA vide order dated 16.9.2011 wherein he had directed the CPIO to provide information on para (A). As regards para (C), he had observed that the appellant had not sought any specific information. However, as regards para (B), the AA had directed the CPIO to check whether any such file was in existence and, if yes, to provide information there-from.
15. During the hearing, the appellant submits that he is not sure whether he received any information from the CPIO or not. In the premises, the matter is being closed.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000243
16. Vide RTI application dated 14.6.2011, the appellant had sought information on the following two paras:-
"(A) Please provide inspection of daily diary and file movement register pertaining to Shri Rakesh Kumar, Hon'ble Member (Technical) Hon'ble President CESTAT for the period 2009 till date and files and records referred to in the above daily dairy or file movement register.
(B) Please provide copies of all documents and information as per required after inspection.'
17. It, however, appears that he CPIO did not respond to the RTI application at all. Thereupon, the appellant had filed the first appeal which was disposed of by FAA vide order dated 16.9.2011, wherein he had directed to CPIO to give inspection of the relevant records to the appellant within 30 days time. During the hearing, it transpires that the CPIO, vide letter dated 21.9.2011, had offered inspection of relevant records to the appellant on 3.10.2011. The appellant does concede that he took inspection of part records but is not satisfied that the entire records were produced before him. However, his main contention is that the CPIO did not respond to the RTI application at all and thereby violated the mandate of law.
18. During the hearing, Shri Verma submits that he was designated as CPIO on 27.7.2011. When the RTI application was filed on 10.6.2011, he was not the CPIO. Shri Mohinder Singh, AR, was the CPIO. Hence, only he is not responsible for not responding to the RTI application.
19. In view of the above, notice may be issued to Shri Mohinder Singh, AR, to showcase why penal action should not be taken against him for not responding to the RTI application within the prescribed period of 30 days.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000244
20. In the RTI application dated 20.6.2011, the appellant had sought the following information:-
"(A) Please provide information as to the basis for adjournment of matter of Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Appeal Nos. 560-574 and 902 of 2006 and 2039-2050 of 2006 (S.M.)from 16.6.2011 to 22.6.2011 by Hon'ble President of the CESTAT, when the matter was in the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Shri M. V. Ravindram who happened to be in Delhi on 16.6.2011 and was free in the afternoon of 16.6.2011 to hold Court as Single Member.
(B) Please provide details, information and copy of any request received from any party for adjourned of the said matter from 16.6.2011.
(C) Please provide inspection of all records, files, documents and note sheets in relation to information sought in Clause (A) and (B) above.
(D) Please provide inspection of Daily Dairy of the Hon'ble President from 1.1.2011 till date of providing information."
21. The CPIO did not respond to the RTI application at all. However, on appeal, the first Appellate Authority in order dated 27.9.2011 had permitted the appellant to inspect the relevant records. Shri S. K. Verma (CPIO), vide letter dated 30.9.2011, had invited the appellant to inspect the available records on 20.10.2011 that is after a gap of 04 months.
22. During the hearing, the appellant submits that the CPIO had actually signed the letter on 18.10.2011 thereby giving him one day time for inspection. It is, thus, appellant's contention that the CPIO has not taken his duties seriously as CPIO, first, by not responding to the RTI application and later, by giving him only one day time to inspect the records in compliance of AA's order.
23. In the premises, notice may be issued to Shri S. K. Verma to show cause why penal action should not be taken against him for not responding to the RTI application.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000245
24. In the RTI application dated 6.9.2011, the appellant had sought the following information:-
"(A)Please provide details of income tax deductions (TDS) by CESTAT from 1.1.2011 to till date, from the salary of Shri S. K. Verma and basis for calculation of such deduction.
(B) Please provide basis and information for not deducting any income tax (TDS) from the salary6 of Shri S. K. Verma from July 2006 to January 2010 and relevant records in this respect.
(C ) Please also provide basis for non deduction or less deduction of income tax (TDS) from the salary of S. K. Verma for April 2005 till date then the amount normally deductable or deducted from similar salary of other AR's.
(D) Please provide complete print out of details of pay and deductions for all the AR's at Delhi for the period January 2006 till date.
(E) Please provide copy of annual Income Tax TDS return filed by CESTAT during the year 2006-07 to 2010-2011.
(F) Please provide inspection of all records, documents, files, note sheets relating to information sought in Clause (A) to (E) above."
25. The CPIO had not responded to it at all. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority, vide order dated 20.1.2012, had directed the CPIO to furnish information to the appellant. During the hearing, Shri Verma submits that as the appellant has sought personal information about himself, vide letter dated 11.11.2011, he had requested the Registrar to designate another CPIO to deal with this matter. His request was accepted and Shri Mohinder Singh, AR, was designated as CPIO for the purpose of this RTI application. It is, thus, his contention that he is not blameworthy in this matter.
26. However, during the hearing, the appellant submits that he had received information from the CPIO with a delay of about 104 days.
27. As Shri Mohidner Singh, AR, was designated as CPIO in this matter in the peculiar facts of this case, he is responsible for delayed supply of information. Hence, notice may be issued to him to show cause why penal action should not be taken against him.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000367
28. In the RTI application dated 21.7.2012, the appellant had sought the following information:-
"(A) As per Monthly statement Mr. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar the Hon'ble President of CESTAT has been on leave as under:April 2009 3 May 2009 3 June 2009 5 Sept 2009 2 Oct 2009 1 Jan 2010 5 June 2010 4 Sept 2010 3 Nov 2010 2 Dec 2010 2 Feb 2011 6 March 2011 1 April 2011 5 May 2011 14
Please provide details asto the dates on which each of the above leave was availed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar. Please also provide copies of the relevant leave application and leave records.
(B) Please provide inspection of all files, registers, records, documents and note-sheets referred to in clauses (a) above."
29. The appellant submits that the CPIO did not respond to the RTI application at all. Hence, the appellant has filed the present complaint before the Commission. In the premises, notice may be issued to Shri S. K. Verma, AR, to show cause why penal action should not be taken against him for not responding to the RTI application.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000360 File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000365 File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000368
30. The appellant wishes to withdraw the above complaints. Permitted.
31. The notices may be issued to Shri S. K. Verma, AR and Shri Mohinder Singh separately in each case. The notices are returnable in two weeks time. The matter is adjourned to 30th July, 2013 at 1030 hrs. Shri Verma and Shri Mohinder Singh will remain present before the Commission."
2. As scheduled, the matter is heard today dated 30.7.2013. The appellant is present in today's hearing. CESTAT is represented by Shri Mohinder Singh, Asstt. Registrar; Shri S. K. Verma, Asstt. Registrar and Shri Naresh Kumar, Dy. Registrar (CPIO).
3. The case-wise position is as follows.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000195/LS
4. It may be recalled that notice was issued to Shri S. K. Verma and Shri Mohinder Singh, both ARs, to submit their explanation for various alleged acts of omission and commission on their part, as encapsulated in para 05 of the earlier proceedings. The above officers have submitted their detailed representations which are taken on record. The salient points made by them are as follows:-
(i) that the appellant is in the habit of filing innumerable RTI applications / appeals / complaints which is crippling the normal functioning of the CESTAT;
(ii) that the appellant is in the habit of seeking identical, voluminous and unspecific information;
(iii) that the appellant is in the habit of filing numerous and voluminous RTI applications seeking information about third parties;
(iv) that the appellant is in the habit of seeking information for promotion of his commercial/ business interests, devoid of any public interest;
(v) that the use of RTI Act by the appellant is not bonafide and is a colourable exercise; &
(vi) that CESTAT is suffering from shortage of staff and some delay here and there in responding to the appellant's numerous RTI applications needs to be condoned for practical reasons.
5. Importantly, Shri Verma also submits that it is not correct to say that he had not passed any instructions to anyone to give inspection to the appellant on the appointed date. In fact, he had endorsed a copy of his letter to Shri Mohinder Singh with the request to give inspection to the appellant, if he visited the office.
6. On the other hand, the appellant would submit that the RTI application was responded to with a delay of 12 days. Furthermore, Shri Verma offered him inspection on 47th day of the filing of the RTI application i.e. after a gap of 32 days. Furthermore, when he went to take the inspection on the appointed day, Shri Verma was not found to be present on his seat and he had not instructed anyone to give him inspection, thereby resulting in the wastage of his time, energy and resources. More importantly, it is the appellant's submission that the above named officers malafidely and deliberately denied information with a view to shielding Shri R. M. S. Khandaparkar, former President, CESTAT.
7. It is a matter of record that Shri Verma responded to the RTI application with a delay of 12 days. It is also a matter of record that Shri Verma offered inspection to the appellant after a gap of about a month which cannot be said to be a reasonable time frame under the RTI regime. However, Shri Verma cannot be faulted for not being present on the appointed dated i.e. 30.10.2011, in his office as he had endorsed the said letter to Shri Mohinder Singh for giving inspection to the appellant if the latter turned up for taking inspection. Even so, the submissions made by Shri Verma cannot fully exculpate him.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking a lenient view, I hereby impose penalty of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) on Shri Verma. Shri S. K. Verma, would remit an amount of Rs. 1000/- by demand draft or a banker's cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Director and Jt. Registrar of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi. However, I am not inclined to take any action against Shri Mohinder Singh, as the appellant did not approach him for taking inspection. The matter against Shri Mohinder Singh, is being closed.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000227/LS
9. Shri Verma submits that the RTI application was filed on 16.6.2011 and he was not the CPIO at that time. He assumed the charge of CPIO only on 28.7.2011. Shri Mohinder Singh was the CPIO at the relevant time.
10. Shri Mohinder Singh, however, would submit that he could not respond to the RTI application because of excessive workload and also because he was not feeling well at that time.
11. Asto the question of the AA's order being complied with after a gap of 108 days, Shri Verma would submit that as he had filed an appeal before CIC against the order of FAA, he was not mandated to implement AA's order. (The appeal filed by him in this matter was disposed of by this Commission alongwith several other appeals in a consolidated order dated 13.3.2013).
12. In my opinion, Shri Verma cannot be held to be blameworthy in not responding to the RTI application as he was not the CPIO at the time of the filing of the RTI application. The RTI application should have been responded to by Shri Mohinder Singh, Asstt. Registrar, as he was the CPIO at the relevant time. Furthermore, Shri Verma also cannot be held responsible for delayed implementation of the AA's order as he had filed an appeal from that order before the Central Information Commission. In my opinion, no blame latches on to Shri Verma. Hence, notice issued to him is recalled.
13. However, I am not inclined to accept the explanation given by Shri Mohinder Singh for not responding to the RTI application within the prescribed time frame. Excessive workload cannot be a valid justification for not responding to the RTI application in time. However, as Shri Mohinder Singh was not keeping good health at the relevant time, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be expedient to impose penalty of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) on Shri Mohinder Singh who would remit an amount of Rs. 1000/- by demand draft or a banker's cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Director and Jt. Registrar of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000243/LS
14. The appellant's case is that Shri Mohinder Singh, CPIO responded to the RTI application with a delay of 142 days. During the hearing, Shri Mohinder Singh submits that he has already been punished by the CIC in this very matter. In the premises, the matter is closed.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000244/LS
15. The allegation against Shri Verma, CPIO, is that he did not decide the RTI application at all. On the other hand, Shri Verma would submit that he had refused to disclose information in this matter vide his letter of 11.8.2011. He amplifies that he had passed a consolidated order denying information in a large number of cases and the present case figures at Sl. No. 26 thereof.
16. To this, the appellant would respond that it is a complete fraud. This response is no response in the eyes of law. He would further submit that the AA had passed an order dated 27.9.2011 which was complied with by the CPIO on 19.1.2012 i.e. after a delay of 100 days which cannot be said to be reasonable time. Besides, the CPIO had offered him inspection at only one day's notice, thereby making a mockery of the law.
17. I have perused the so called consolidated order dated 11.8.2011 purported to have been passed by Shri Verma vide which he claims to have refused to disclose any information to the RTI application in question. The RTI application in hand has been dealt with at Sl. No. 26 of the said letter which is not a reasoned order at all. Hence, in my view, it is a case of 'deemed denial' of information.
18. Besides, there is also the allegation of virtual non- compliance of the AA's order against Shri Verma inasmuch as he gave only one day's notice to the appellant for taking inspection. One day's notice cannot be said to be reasonable, it being too short. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find Shri Verma blameworthy on both the counts. In the premises, it would be fit and proper to impose penalty of Rs. 3000/- (three thousand) on Shri Verma. Shri S. K. Verma, would remit an amount of Rs. 3000/- by demand draft or a banker's cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Director and Jt. Registrar of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000245/LS
19. Shri Mohinder Singh submits that after recusal of Shri Verma, the competent authority had designated him as CPIO on 17.11.2011. He had responded to the RTI application after a gap of 42 days and, thus, there was delay of 12 days.
20. On the other hand, the appellant would submit that the information sought by him was sensitive in nature relating to alleged forgery by the Asstt. Registrar and, therefore, there was deliberate attempt to cause delay in supply of information.
21. Admittedly, there has been a delay of about twelve days on the part of Shri Mohinder Singh, Asstt. Registrar. Hence, penalty of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) is imposed on him. Shri Mohinder Singh, would remit an amount of Rs. 1000/- by demand draft or a banker's cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Director and Jt. Registrar of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi.
File No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000367/LS
22. During the hearing, Shri Verma submits that he had disposed of the impugned RTI application vide his consolidated order dated 11.8.2011 alongwith several other cases. The present case figures at Sl. No. 71 of his order. He also submits that the appellant had filed first appeal against his order which was disposed of by the AA vide order dated 8.11.2011, without providing any substantive relief to the appellant. He, therefore, urges that the show cause notice be recalled.
23. On the other hand, Shri Jain would submit that Shri Verma had, indeed, passed a consolidated order, disposing of as many as 90 RTI applications, without dealing with the individual merits of each RTI application and had, thus, violated the letter and spirit of law.
24. As noted hereinabove, the mechanical disposal of scores of RTI applications in one so called consolidated order, without dealing with the individual merits of each case, cannot be said to be proper disposal. Hence, I am inclined to treat it as a case of 'deemed denial' of information. I, therefore, impose penalty of Rs. 2000/- (two thousand) on Shri Verma. Shri S. K. Verma, would remit an amount of Rs. 2000/- by demand draft or a banker's cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Director and Jt. Registrar of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K L Das) Dy. Registrar Address of parties
1. Shri S. K. Verma Asstt. Registrar & CPIO, Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2 West Block, R K Puram, New Delhi
2. Shri Mohinder Singh Asstt. Registrar, Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2 West Block, R K Puram, New Delhi
3. Shri Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar Director & Jt. Registrar, CIC, Room No. 310, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066
4. Shri R. K. Jain No. 1512-B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg, Wazir Nagar, New Delhi - 110003