Central Information Commission
Keshav Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs ... on 26 April, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCPDL/A/2020/130416
Keshav Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Commissioner of
Customs, RTI Cell, Inland
Container, Depot(Import),
Tughlakabad, New Delhi - 110020. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/02/2022
Date of Decision : 22/04/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30/06/2020
CPIO replied on : 20/08/2020
First appeal filed on : 24/08/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 21/09/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29/09/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.06.2020 seeking the following information:1
(i) Provide Copy of Bill, Pill of entry, Bill of Lending and Shipment Details and Import-Export License of Machinery purchased on 19.01.2013 by K.K. Industries situated at Plot No. 48P-49, Sector-26, Industrial Area, Bhiwani (Haryana) to the Applicant.
(ii) Provide information regarding s remedies available to the Applicant against SPIO for not performing his duty.
The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 20.08.2020 under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.08.2020. FAA's order dated 21.09.2020 observed as under:-
"I find that before denying the information as pertaining to third party the CPIO should ascertain whether the information sought is available at all. Enquiries were made by the undersigned whether information sought is available with this office. On the basis of the office records available, it is found that there are no records of any imports made by M/s K.K. industries in January, 2013.
Hence, the question of making available of copies of Bill, Bill of Entry, Bill of Lading and shipment details and Import-Export License of machinery purchased on 19.01.2013 by M/s K.K. Industries does not arise."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference. Respondent: Rahil Gupta, Deputy Commissioner & CPIO present through audio conference.
As the Commission remarked upon the facts of the case as contained in the FAA's order, the Appellant stated that he has not received the FAA's order even as it was pointed out to him that he has himself enclosed a copy of the FAA's order with the Second Appeal.
The CPIO agreed to abide by the order of the Commission, if any, in the matter.2
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the merits of the CPIO's reply cannot be called into question in as much as it was not clear from the contents of the RTI Application that the firm under reference is Appellant's own firm as has been later brought out by him in the First Appeal. Further, since the FAA has provided a factual reply to the information sought for in the RTI Application indicating the unavailability of any such records of import, the Commission does not find any scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
The Commission is also baffled at the contention of non-receipt of the FAA's order by the Appellant in as much as he has himself placed on record the FAA's order. Nonetheless, to allay the apprehensions of the Appellant, the Commission directs the CPIO to send a copy of the FAA's order as well as a copy CPIO's written submissions dated 15.02.2022 to the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3