Central Information Commission
Ankush Kaura vs Department Of Defence on 13 November, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MODEF/A/2023/638753
Ankush Kaura .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Canteen Store Department,
'ADELPHI' 119, M.K. Road,
Mumbai - 400020 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.11.2024
Date of Decision : 12.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.05.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 06.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 30.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.06.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 02.05.2023 with the CPIO, Department of Defence seeking the following information:
"Prime Minister Modi ji I want to know from you under the right of information that you and your government always say that we will not spare the fraudsters and forgery as the previous government used to do but did it really happen because I have seen your portal But do not know Page 1 of 6 how many times wrote about the fraud happening in the name of Defense where a multinational company Samsung and its dealer evaded tax in the name of canteen store department as well as canteen department of the countrys most important department Ministry of Defence Store department name used without permission.
Now Modi ji you tell me under the right of information that using the name of any government department without permission is a legal offense or not Prime Minister if it is illegal to use the name of any government agency without permission, apart from this PMO portal and ministry Refuting the reply of RTI and RTI 1st and 2nd appeal through Off Defense giving wrong statements to the police contrary to their reply is also a crime if not then why action has not been taken against the culprits till now. He broke the act too he was not held accountable.
I want to know from you under the right of information that if I myself or any other person is unable to punish any culprit due to lack of money and take legal action against him will your government not take any action against the culprits and that Even when it has been answered against the culprits through the PMO portal itself that fraud has been done through them apart from this the fraud in this case has also been proved through the reply of RTI 1st and RTI 2nd appeal through the Ministry of Defense Are Prime Minister Modi under the right of information I should now be told that what action the government will take against the culprits because the connections of this case have been met with big officers only then Canteen Store Department GM Y P Khanduri AGM Legal P Shridhar and Section Officer Ministry of Answer should also be sought from Defense Raj Kumari Singh that why he did not take this case seriously and why strict action was not taken against the culprits in the last 4 to 5 years They are related to this case in some way thats why these people did not advocate taking any legal action against the culprits even after having all the evidence.
Prime Minister Modi under the right of information I should be told that what cognizance will your government take on such employees who do not do their work properly"
Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 30.06.2023, held as under.
"1. Now on perusal of record, it has been observed that CPIO has rightly disposed of your RTI application dated 24.05.2023, vide letter No. 3/A- 3/Legal/RTI-1437/280 dated 07.06.2023 (not on record), based on the Page 2 of 6 information available with the CPIO and as provided by the custodian of information.
2. Therefore, in view of the above, Appeal dated 06.06.2023, is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Mr. Rahul Bhonsle, AGM/CPIO (appeared late) through video- conference.
Appellant while reiterating the contents of RTI application contended that proper reply has not been furnished to him till date. He further contended that the reply given by the CPIO was delayed which is against the spirit of the RTI Act and respondent should be penalized for their faults.
Respondent stated that reply has already been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 07.06.2023. He further apprised the bench that core issue raised by the appellant in this case relates to alleged unauthorized dealership held by M/s. Dewan Krishna & Grandson's which as per appellant not the registered dealer for selling Samsung products. In this regard, the appellant has filed multiple RTI applications and complaints on CPGRAM portal, to which it was already informed to him in the past vide letter dated 20.09.2022 as under -
"3. In this regard it is to state that based on the information available with the CPIO and as provided by the custodian of information, vide letter No. AFD/7387/Ankush Kaura/265 dated 07.08.2020, it was intimated to you that M/s Dewan Krishna & Grandson's is not a registered dealer for Samsung Products whereas they are registered dealer for M/s. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.
However, during the further examination it was observed that M/s. Samsung Electronics had nominated M/s Dewan Krishna & Grandson's as their authorized dealer in the month of August 2020 vide their E-mail dated 18.08.2020 which resulted in overlapping of data / information and as such the lapse is sincerely regretted which was totally unintentional.
Page 3 of 64. It is pertinent to mention here that w.e.f. Jan'21 all white goods and two / four wheeler can be bought by the beneficiaries online only through AFD Portal after registering for the same on the rates approved by CSD. No beneficiary can buy these items offline.
5. If the said M/s Dewan Krishna & Grandson's are selling products to the customers at a reduced selling price, as alleged by you it is beyond the administrative purview of CSD and the resultant tax evasion etc, if any, has to be dealt by the concerned authorities like GST/ Sale Tax authorities. This Department is in no way responsible for the same...."
Respondent tendered his apology for not filing written submissions enumerating the fact and figures of the case to assist the bench and urged the Commission to grant time to do the needful which was allowed.
Post hearing, the respondent filed a written submission dated 08.11.2024 which is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced below:
"...2. It is brought to the kind attention of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner that Shri. Ankush Kaura has filed numerous RTI Applications regarding the issue of Tax Evasion by Consumer Goods Dealer M/S Krishna Grand Sons.
3. CSD vide its following replies has informed the applicant that the case of Tax Evasion is under the area of reference of the Concerned Tax Authorities and CSD has no jurisdiction over the issue.
Sr No. Letter No.
1. 3/A-3/Legal/1411/CPGRAM/AnkushKaura/6346 dated 17.09.2021
2. 3/A-3/Legal/RTI-1317/974 dated 06.12.2022
3. 3/A-3/Legal/RTI-1436/281 dated 07.06.2023
4. 3/A-3/Legal/RTI-1437/282 dated 07.06.2023
5. 3/A-3/Legal/RTI/CP GRAM/129 dated 19.04.2024
6. PMOPG/E/2020/0496231, dated 04.08.2021
7. PMOPG/E/2020/0785043, dated 17.09.2020
8. PMOPG/E/2020/0836166, dated 17.09.2020
9. PMOPG/E/2020/0965353, dated 22.01.2021
10. PMOPG/E/2020/0986776, dated 11.01.2021
11. PMOPG/E/2020/0990685, dated 11.01.2021
12. PMOPG/E/2020/0992764, dated 11.01.2021
13. PMOPG/E/2021/0171153, dated 21.05.2021
14. PMOPG/E/2021/0425183, dated 04.08.2021
15. PMOPG/E/2021/0450051, dated 04.08.2021
16. PMOPG/E/2021/0450178, ciated 04.08.2021 Page 4 of 6
17. PMOPG/D/2021/0236631, dated 20.10.2021
18. PMOPG/E/2021/0570841, dated 23.11.2021
19. PMOPG/E/2022/0256384, dated 30.09.2022
20. 3/A-3/RTI-1152/7200, dated 17.09.2021
4. In consideration of the applicant's complaint an internal Board of Officers was appointed to inquire into the facts of the issues. The Board of Officers has come to the conclusion that the complaint against the Dealer M/S Krishna Grand Sons was result of a professional rivalry between the dealer and the applicant which is beyond the administrative purview of CSD.
5. Considering various replies given to the applicant on the same issue and the finding of the Board of Officers, the then CPIO rejected the application under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 as Dealer M/S Krishna Grand Sons is a third party entity.
6. It is also brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner that, the applicant threatens the officials of CSD by recording their conversation over Telephone and is repeatedly seeking information on the same issue regularly. CSD has given him all the necessary information available with us and has also promptly inquired into his grievance. Such type of recurrent RTI application on the same issue puts pressure on the administrative system and the manpower.
7. CSD requests the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to advise the applicant to refrain from filing repeated RTI application on the same issue and stop recording the conversation with the officials to threaten them."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records finds no infirmity in the written submissions tendered by the Respondent vide letter dated 08.11.2024 which is treated as revised and updated reply as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Nonetheless, in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the respondent is directed to send a copy of his written submission dated 08.11.2024 to the appellant within two weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
Late coming of the respondent CPIO is viewed adversely seriously and he is cautioned to be careful in future.Page 5 of 6
FAA to ensure compliance of the above directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Canteen Store Department, 'ADELPHI' 119, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)