Central Information Commission
Roopadevi M vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 17 December, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal/ िशकायत सं या / Complaint No:-
CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/160745-BJ+
CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/161667-BJ+
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/163405-BJ +
CIC/CCITB/C/2017/163045-BJ+
CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/163893-BJ+
CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/164613-BJ+
CIC/CCEXB/A/2017/165716-BJ+
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/165819-BJ+
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/169296-BJ+
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/171886-BJ+
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/171888-BJ+
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/171890-BJ+
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/171892-BJ+
CIC/CBECE/A/2017/172202-BJ
Ms. Roopadevi M
....अपीलकता
/Appellant / िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Assistant Commissioner,
Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs
C.R. Building, Queen's Road
Bangalore - 560001
2. CPIO,
National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes & Narcotics
No. 40, HMT Factory, Main Road
Next to HMT School, Jalahalli
Bangalore - 560013
3. CPIO,
Office of the Commissioner of Central Taxes,
Bengaluru North Commissionerate: HMT Bhavan
Ganga Nagar, Bangalore - 560032
4. CPIO,
Office of the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax,
Page 1 of 15
Bangalore South Commissionerate,
C.R. Building, Queen's Road
P.B. No. 5400, Bengaluru - 560001
5. CPIO,
Office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs
Airport and Air Cargo Commissionerate,
Menzies Aviation, Bobba Cargo Terminal
1st Floor, Kempegowda, International Airport
Devanahalli, Bengaluru - 560300
6. CPIO,
O/o Commissioner of Customs,
Airport and Air Cargo Complex,
AI SATS, AIR Freight Terminal II Floor,
Devanhalli, Bengaluru- 560030
7. CPIO,
Dy. Commissioner (Vigilance),
Directorate General of Vigilance,
Customs & Central Excise, 3rd Floor,
Hotel Samrat, Kautilya Marg
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi - 110021
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.12.2018
Date of Decision : 17.12.2018
ORDER
RTI I: File No. CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/160745-BJ Date of RTI application 20.06.2017 CPIO's response 18.07.2017 Date of the First Appeal 26.07.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 22.08.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 31.08.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 14 points with respect to Mr. Rajiv Bhushan Tiwari, Chief Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, present posting along with complete detailed list of his postings/departments served from the date of joining, official income as per records, whether his spouse earned any income from salary/business, whether he was staying in a rented premises or own premises and issues related thereto.Page 2 of 15
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 18.07.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant wherein for points 01 to 10, 13 & 14 information was denied under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 22.08.2017 while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Another's Vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Others (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) dated 09.08.2011, upheld the CPIOs response.
(Similar issues were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in CIC/CBECE/C/2017/320069- BJ dated 25.09.2017, CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186752-BJ+ CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/188462-BJ dated 18.10.2017, CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186749-BJ dated 27.12.2017 CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/174503-BJ 23.01.2018.) RTI II: File No. CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/161667-BJ Date of RTI application 27.06.2017 CPIO's response 25.07.2017 Date of the First Appeal 31.07.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 28.08.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.09.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding names, age, address and occupation of all the family members of Mr. R. B. Tiwari along with his property details as well as that of his family members acquired in the last 10 years and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 25.07.2017 denied disclosure of information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA.
The FAA, vide its order dated 28.08.2017 while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Mahesh Mangalat dated 17.03.2015, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission dated 03.10.2012, denied information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(Similar issues were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in CIC/CBECE/C/2017/320069- BJ dated 25.09.2017, CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186752-BJ+ CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/188462-BJ dated 18.10.2017, CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186749-BJ dated 27.12.2017 CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/174503-BJ 23.01.2018.) RTI III: File No. CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/163405-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 17.07.2017 CPIO's response 07.08.2017 04.09.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Page 3 of 15 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 08.09.2017 FACTS:
The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information regarding action taken report on her complaint dated 26.10.2015 against the officers whose names was mentioned in the RTI application.
The CPIO and Asst. Commissioner (CCO), vide its letter dated 07.08.2017 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, O/o the Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for necessary action. Subsequently, the CPIO, National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes and Narcotics vide letter dated 04.09.2017 while referring to another RTI application dated 30.08.2017 wherein the instant RTI application dated 17.07.2017 was enclosed, stated that the complaint dated 26.10.2015 was addressed to the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bengaluru and the same was not in their possession. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
(Similar issue was heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Appeal No.:-
CIC/CCEXB/C/2017/310122-BJ dated 12.12.2017) RTI IV: File No. CIC/CCITB/C/2017/163045-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 21.06.2017 CPIO's response 30.08.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 08.09.2017 FACTS:
The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding whether any departmental action had been initiated as a result of the investigations/recommendations rendered by the CVO/CVC, whether Mr. Pramod Gulvady had been arrested by the C.B.I., whether there were any reprimands against the above mentioned officer as a result of the offences/criminal misconduct committed by him etc. The CPIO, vide its reply dated 30.08.2017 denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
(Similar issue was heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Complaint No.:-
CIC/CCEXB/C/2017/183273-BJ+ CIC/CCEXB/C/2017/183102-BJ dated 18.10.2017) RTI V: File No. CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/163893-BJ Page 4 of 15 Date of RTI application 21.06.2017 CPIO's response 02.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 11.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 05.09.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 12.09.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the total number of officers who had been arrested while serving under the direct/indirect jurisdiction of Mr. R. B. Tiwari since September 2015 until date, names, rank of the officers arrested for the aforementioned period and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 02.08.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated
05.09.2017, upheld the CPIOs response.
(Similar issue was heard and adjudicated by the Commission in CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/160638-BJ dated 23.01.2018.) RTI VI: File No. CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/164613-BJ Date of RTI application 27.06.2017 CPIO's response 02.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 11.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 05.09.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 13.09.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding names, age, address and occupation of all the family members of Mr. R. B. Tiwari along with his property details as well as that of his family members acquired in the last 10 years and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 02.08.2017 denied disclosure of information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA.
The FAA, vide its order dated 05.09.2017 while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Mahesh Mangalat dated 17.03.2015, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission dated 03.10.2012, denied information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(Similar issues were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in CIC/CBECE/C/2017/320069- BJ dated 25.09.2017, CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186752-BJ+ CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/188462-BJ dated Page 5 of 15 18.10.2017, CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186749-BJ dated 27.12.2017 CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/174503-BJ 23.01.2018.) RTI VII: File No. CIC/CCEXB/A/2017/165716-BJ Date of RTI application 21.06.2017 CPIO's response 12.07.2017 Date of the First Appeal 26.07.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 01.09.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.09.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 03 points in respect of Mrs. Senthamarai Selvi, Superintendent of Central Excise, whether any departmental action had been initiated as a result of the investigation/recommendations rendered by CVO/CVC, whether she had been arrested by the CBI and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.07.2017 denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 01.09.2017 while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission and the order of the Commission in the case of Shri Manoj Arya Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat (File No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058) dated 26.06.2013, concurred with the CPIOs response.
Similar issues were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in CIC/CCEXB/C/2017/103975- BJ dated 12.12.2017, CIC/CCITB/C/2017/153283-BJ dated 18.10.2017, CIC/CCEXB/C/2017/310121-BJ dated 18.10.2017, Appeal No.:-CIC/SB/C/2016/000115-BJ + CIC/SB/C /2016/000118-BJ dated 08.02.2017. Moreover, similar issues relating to the posting details, date of joining, service period, etc were heard and decided by the Commission in CIC/CCEXB/C/2017/310124-BJ- Final dated 01.01.2018, RTI VIII: File No.:- CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/165819-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 03.08.2017 CPIO's response 07.09.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 19.09.2017 FACTS:Page 6 of 15
The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding official income of Mr. Sujith Kumar P Sompur, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, whether his spouse earned any income from salary/business, and the details of his declared assets as per official records etc. The CPIO, vide its reply dated 07.09.2017, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
The Commission observed that similar issues were heard and adjudicated in Complaint No. - CIC/SB/C/2016/000072-BJ + CIC/SB/C/2016/000098-BJ dated 08.02.2017 CIC/CBECE/C/2017/320067-BJ dated 25.09.2017 and CIC/CBECE/C/2017/314275-BJ dated 25.09.2017, CIC/CCEXB/C/2017/186753-BJ dated 18.10.2017, CIC/DOREV/C/2017/311929- BJ dated 28.11.2017, CIC/DOREV/C/2017/311932-BJ dated 28.11.2017, CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/108698-BJ dated 12.12.2017 and CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186737-BJ dated 27.12.2017. During the hearing, the Respondent also emphasized exemption from disclosure citing provision 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 in addition to the CPIO's reply.
RTI IX: File No-CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/169296-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 03.08.2017 CPIO's response 18.09.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 04.10.2017 FACTS:
The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the official income of Mr. M V Srinivas, Inspector of Customs, whether his spouse earned any income from salary/business and the details of the declared assets as per the official records etc. The CPIO, vide its reply dated 18.09.2017 denied disclosure of the information under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
(Similar issues were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Complaint No. CIC/SB/C/2016/000067-BJ + CIC/SB/C/2016/000087/BJ dated 08.02.2017, CIC/DOREV/C/2017/311926-BJ dated 25.09.2017, CIC/DOREV/C/2017/311927-BJ dated 28.11.2017, CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/108697-BJ dated 12.12.2017 and CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/128442-BJ 23.01.2018.) RTI X File No.:- CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/171886-BJ Page 7 of 15 Date of filing of RTI application 03.08.2017 CPIO's response 07.08.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 16.10.2017 FACTS:
The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the official income of Mr. Narayanan, Superintendent of Customs (SIIB Department, Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore), whether his spouse earned any income from salary/business and the details of his declared assets as per the official records etc. The CPIO and Asst. Commissioner (CCO) vide its letter dated 07.08.2017 forwarded the RTI application to the CPIO, Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for necessary action. Dissatisfied with the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
(Similar issue was heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Complaint No.:-
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186745-BJ dated 27.12.2017) RTI XI: File No.:-CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/171888-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 03.08.2017 CPIO's response 07.08.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 16.10.2017 FACTS:
The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the official income of Mr. Basavaraj, Inspector of Customs (SIIB Department, Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore), whether his spouse earned any income from salary/business and the details of his declared assets as per the official records etc. The CPIO and Asst. Commissioner (CCO), vide its letter dated 07.08.2017 forwarded the RTI application to the CPIO, O/o the Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for necessary action. Dissatisfied with the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
(Similar issue was heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Complaint No.:-
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186744-BJ dated 27.12.2017)
RTI XII: File No.:- CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/171890-BJ
Page 8 of 15
Date of filing of RTI application 03.08.2017
CPIO's response 07.08.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 16.10.2017
FACTS:
The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the official income of Mr. P.G. Shenoy, Superintendent of Customs (CIU Department, Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore), whether his spouse earn any income from salary/business and the details of his declared assets as per the official records etc. The CPIO and Asst. Commissioner, Customs, vide its letter dated 07.08.2017 forwarded the RTI application to the CPIO, Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for necessary action. Dissatisfied with the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
(Similar issue was heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Complaint No.:-
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186746-BJ dated 27.12.2017) RTI XIII: File No.:- CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/171892-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 03.08.2017 CPIO's response 07.08.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 16.10.2017 FACTS:
The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the official income of Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Superintendent of Customs, whether his spouse earned any income from salary/business and the details of his declared assets as per the official records etc. The CPIO and Asst. Commissioner, Customs, vide its letter dated 07.08.2017 forwarded the RTI application to the CPIO, Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for necessary action. Dissatisfied with the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
(Similar issue was heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Complaint No.:-
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186747-BJ dated 27.12.2017)
Page 9 of 15
RTI XIV: File No. :- CIC/CBECE/A/2017/172202-BJ
Date of RTI application 09.06.2017
CPIO's response 26.07.2017/
09.08.2017
Date of the First Appeal 24.08.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 28.09.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 17.10.2017
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding unconditional apology tendered by the accused Mr. Rajiv Bhushan Tiwari before the High Court of Karnataka, whether the CBEC Board or the Revenue Ministry/ Finance Ministry had been informed or kept in the loop, sequence of events that led to Mr. Rajiv Bhushan Tiwari indulging in such acts of willfully disobeying the High Court's Order and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 26.07.2017/09.08.2017 while referring to the DoP&T OM dated 14.08.2013, the decision of the Commission in File No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission, stated that the information sought was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, it was stated that the information sought was not available with them. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.09.2017, upheld the CPIOs response.
(Similar issue was heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Appeal No.:-
CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/159537-BJ dated 23.01.2018 HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. M. V. Nagaraj, CPIO/AC; Mr. Satish R Rao, AC; Ms. Ezhilmathi, Jt. Director, National Academy of Customs; Mr. M. Suresh, AC, Bangalore North Commissionerate; Mr M G Nadkarni, DC; Mr. K. V. Arvind, Sr. Standing Counsel (Customs) through VC and Mohd. Tariq, IRS, Asst. Commissioner in person;
The Appellant/ Complainant was not present during the hearing. Mr. Vinoth, Network Engineer NIC studio at Bengaluru confirmed the absence of the Appellant/ Complainant. In all the cases, the Respondents unanimously cited the decisions of the Commission in similar such matters and prayed for dismissal of the said Appeals/ Complaints. Besides this, it was also articulated that the applicant in all these cases had been filing numerous RTI applications to accomplish his/ her vested interests and misusing RTI as a tool to achieve the same. On a query from the Page 10 of 15 Commission, if in any of the cases adjudicated by the Commission as referred to/ cited against each of the said matters, if any stay order/ decision of the Superior Court was received, the Counsel for the Respondents categorically submitted in the negative. Furthermore, it was argued that the information sought in each of these cases was personal information of the officers which was exempt from disclosure u/s 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 as no public interest was justified or substantiated.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission dated 12.12.2018 from the Respondent, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru (Appeal No. CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/160745-BJ) wherein it was submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in her RTI application was personal information and hence the same was rejected under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 vide office letter dated 18.07.2017. The FAA had upheld the decision of the CPIO. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal based on the above submitted facts.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission dated 12.12.2018 from the Respondent, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru (Appeal No. CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/161667-BJ) wherein it was submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in her RTI application was personal information and hence the same was rejected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 vide office letter dated 25.07.2017 & 02.08.2017. The FAA had upheld the decision of the CPIO. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal based on the above submitted facts.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent (Bengaluru North Commissionerate) (Complaint No. CIC/CCITB/C/2017/163045-BJ) wherein with regard to adhering to the time limit stipulated in the Act, it was stated that the application was received on 22.06.2018. Since the information sought was available with the Customs Commissionerate, it was transferred to them on 29.06.2018 under intimation to the Complainant. The Complainant should have approached the concerned Commissionerate. Subsequently, the CPIO, ACC Customs, Bangalore returned the application without assigning any reasons on 23.08.2017 received on 28.08.2017. However, the CPIO (Air Cargo Commissionerate) did not inform about the transfer to the Complainant. Thereafter reply was furnished on 30.08.2017. Thus, the time frame of 30 days was duly complied with. The CPIO, ACC Bangalore was requested to furnish his comments on the aspect of delay of 59 days vide letter dated 03.12.2018 and reminder letter dated 07.12.2018 and 10.12.2018 but so far Airport and Air Customs Commissionerate did not respond. A reference was made to the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bhagat Singh vs. CIC and Ors. WP (C) 3114/2007, decision of the Commission in Complaint No. CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/160748-BJ dated 01.01.2018, Milap Choraria vs. CBDT, in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/000628, Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on: 01.06.2012). It was also submitted that the present Complaint was premature as the Complainant Page 11 of 15 had not exhausted the First Appeal Mechanism and was prejudiced and therefore it merits rejection.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 12.12.2018, (Appeal No. CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/163893-BJ) wherein it was stated that out of the 06 points, information on 02 points was rejected u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 vide letter dated 02.08.2017. The decision of the CPIO was upheld vide order dated 05.09.2017. It was also submitted that the subject matter had already been addressed by the Commission in CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/160638-BJ dated 23.01.2018.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission dated 12.12.2018 from the Respondent, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru (Appeal No.:-
CIC/CCUBL/A/2017/164613-BJ) wherein it was submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in her RTI application was personal information and hence the same was rejected under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 vide office letter dated 25.07.2017 & 02.08.2017. The FAA had upheld the decision of the CPIO. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal based on the above submitted facts.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 06.12.2018, (Appeal No. CIC/CCEXB/A/2017/165716-BJ) wherein re-iterating the reply of the CPIO/ FAA, it was stated that the since the information sought by the Appellant was under investigation by the department hence it was rightly denied u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The case was under
investigation and was further strengthened by the Action Taken Report of the DGoV dated 30.08.2017 which was submitted by the Appellant himself before the Commission. While relying upon the decision of the Commission in CIC/AT/A/2007, 10 and 11(Shankar Sharma and Ors., vs. DGIT), CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234 (K.S. Prasad vs SEBI) and CIC/DS/A/2013/000138-MP (Narender Bansal vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) it was stated that even though the CVC vide OM dated 12.05.2017 had advised for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the officer, it cannot be said that the case had reached finality in as much as the procedure had to be followed for initiating disciplinary action against the officer as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1985.
The case against the said officer would attain finality only after the final decision was taken by the competent authority as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. A reference was also made to the decision of the Commission in Complaint No. CIC/CCITB/C/2017/153283-BJ dated 18.10.2017.
In its written submission in Complaint No CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/165819-BJ dated 14.08.2018, the Respondent while reiterating the reply of the CPIO/ FAA referred to the decision of the Commission in a similar matter in CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186737-BJ dated 27.12.2017 and submitted that the information sought was personal in nature and had no relation to any public activity or interest.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 12.12.2018, (Complaint No.:- CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/169296-BJ) wherein it was stated that the Complainant had not filed the First Appeal and directly approached the Commission. Furthermore, a reference was drawn to exemption from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (g) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The attention of the Commission was also drawn to the decision of SC in Girish Page 12 of 15 Ramachandra Deshpande vs. CIC and Canara Bank vs C S Shyam and Anr dated 31.08.2017 in support of their decision.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission dated 12.12.2018 from the Respondent, O/o the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru (Complaint No.:-
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/171886-BJ) wherein while reiterating the reply of the CPIO dated 07.08.2017, it was submitted that the subject matter had already been addressed by the Commission in Complaint No.:-CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186745-BJ dated 27.12.2017. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal based on the above stated facts.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission dated 12.12.2018 from the Respondent, O/o the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru (Complaint No.:-
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/171888-BJ) wherein while reiterating the reply of the CPIO dated 07.08.2017, it was submitted that the subject matter had already been addressed by the Commission in Complaint No.:-CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186744-BJ dated 27.12.2017. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal based on the above stated facts.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission dated 12.12.2018 from the Respondent, O/o the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru (Complaint No.:-
CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/171890-BJ) wherein while reiterating the reply of the CPIO dated 07.08.2017, it was submitted that the subject matter had already been addressed by the Commission in Complaint No.:-CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186746-BJ dated 27.12.2017. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal based on the above stated facts.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission dated 12.12.2018 from the Respondent, O/o the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru (Complaint No. CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/171892-BJ) wherein while reiterating the reply of the CPIO dated 07.08.2017, it was submitted that the subject matter had already been addressed by the Commission in Complaint No.:-CIC/CCUBL/C/2017/186747-BJ dated 27.12.2017. Hence, the allegation of the Complainant was incorrect and liable to be rejected.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 13.12.2018, (Appeal No.:- CIC/CBECE/A/2017/172202-BJ) wherein while re-iterating the reply of the CPIO/ FAA, it was stated that the Appellant had claimed in her Second Appeal dated 12.10.2017 that in another RTI application dated 27.06.2017 filed by her colleague on the subject matter to the same CPIO, the relevant RTI application was transferred to the concerned department and he had received the necessary reply. However, as per their records, no such application dated 27.06.2017 filed by the RTI applicant or any other person related to Mr. R.B. Tiwari had been transferred u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Ac, 2005 to any authority by the CPIO of their office. However, two RTI applications dated 27.06.2017 of similar nature of Sh. Kriplani M, Bangalore seeking similar information had been received in their office from CPIO, Ad V, Section, CBEC, New Delhi and the CPIO/ Asst Commissioner, DGHRD, New Delhi respectively u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO, DGoV, New Delhi had not transferred the applications but claimed exemption u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and in other case held that the queries did not amount to information as per Section 2 (f) of the Act. Another RTI application dated 13.07.2018 of Mr. Kriplani M., seeking information regarding Mr. R.B. Tiwari was also received u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 from the US, DoR, New Delhi which had been replied by the then CPIO, Page 13 of 15 DGoV, New Delhi. Explaining that the Appellant was already aware about the concerned/ proper authority holding the information as sought in RTI application dated 09.06.2017, it was submitted that the Appellant knowingly opted to file or submit the RTI application to some other public authority and expected the CPIO, DGoV to transfer the said application to the concerned authority for providing the information. As per the records available with them, the CPIO informed/ replied on 26.07.2017 which was upheld by the FAA on 28.09.2017. The Respondent was directed to endorse a copy of the said submission to the Appellant also for her information.
Having heard the Respondents and on perusal of the available records as also the similar decisions previously pronounced, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
Moreover, in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2003, SC 280 paragraph 11 the Apex Court had held as follows:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of Page 14 of 15 sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
The Appellant/ Complainant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondents and in the light of the previous decisions of the Commission in similar matters as cited above, no further intervention of the Commission was required in the matter.
The Appeals/Complaints stand disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 17.12.2018
Page 15 of 15