Central Information Commission
Shri R.K. Jain vs Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate ... on 30 September, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000630
& F.No.CIC/AT/C/2009/000556
Dated, the 30th September, 2009.
Appellant : Shri R.K. Jain
Respondents : Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
(CESTAT) Pursuant to Commission's notice dated 21.08.2009, this matter came up for hearing on 15.09.2009. Appellant was present in person, while the respondents were absent when called.
2. Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 17.11.2008, sought the following information from the CPIO, Shri Mohinder Singh, Assistant Registrar, Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT):-
"(A) Copy of reliving report of Shri M.V. Ravindran on transfer from Delhi to Mumbai in the year 2007.
(B) Details of the expenses claimed / sanction and paid to Shri M.V. Ravindran for his transfer from Delhi to Mumbai, copies of the relevant Bills and payment vouchers.
(C) Details of the mode of travel, with date and copy of the ticket for his travel from Delhi to Mumbai consequent upon his transfer to Mumbai agency from whom ticket booked.
(D) Details of the mode of transport / transfer of his luggage from Delhi to Mumbai consequent upon his transfer to Mumbai with date of transport and agency / company which transported that luggage and copy of the Bills and Expenses."
3. On 01.12.2008, CPIO made a reference to the Assistant Registrar, Care-Taking Section, CESTAT, New Delhi and the Accounts Officer, CESTAT ⎯ who were the holders-of-the-information according to CPIO ⎯ to provide the requested information to the appellant.
4. According to the written-submission of the respondents, the Assistant Registrar, Care-Taking Section, to whom CPIO referred AT-30092009-03.doc Page 1 of 4 appellant's RTI-application, vide his (Care-Taking Section) letter dated 30.01.2009, replied that the information sought pertained to Administration / Cash Section of the public authority and thus appellant's application was transferred to the latter. The Accounts Officer, on receipt of the above reference, vide his reply dated 10.02.2009, informed that the relevant information had already been provided to the appellant vide I.D. No.128/08.
5. While the above is the position taken by the CPIO and holders-of the-information, it is seen that appellant, on 30.12.2008, filed his first-appeal before the Appellate Authority, Shri S. Chandran, Registrar, CESTAT, in which appellant took the plea that as he had not received any information from the CPIO within 30 days of his filing the RTI-application, the matter should be treated as a case of deemed-refusal and the requested information be directed to be disclosed. According to the appellant, all that he had received from the CPIO was his (CPIO's) communication dated 01.12.2008, through which CPIO had referred the matter to the Assistant Registrar, Care-Taking Section and the Accounts Officer of CESTAT. Nothing further was received by him from the side of the CPIO or from those to whom CPIO made a reference under Section 5(4) of RTI Act.
6. Appellate Authority, in his order dated 09.03.2009, while noting that CPIO stated during the hearing in the first-appeal that he had made sincere efforts to get information from the other Sections of CESTAT, New Delhi, directed "after hearing both sides and perusal of records"
to provide the relevant information sought by the appellant within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the first appellate order by the CPIO.
7. During the hearing, appellant stated that he never received any communication whatsoever from the Assistant Registrar, Care-Taking Section or the Accounts Officer, to whom on 01.12.2008, CPIO, Shri Mohinder Singh had made a Section 5(4)-reference. This matter was brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority, who had then passed an order for disclosure of the requested information. Appellant alleged that CPIO and whoever was the holder-of-the-information had failed to comply with the Appellate Authority's order and were, therefore, liable for penalty.
8. In contrast to what appellant has stated in his submissions, according to the written-statement filed before the Commission by the CPIO, in compliance with the order of the First Appellate Authority, the AT-30092009-03.doc Page 2 of 4 Accounts Officer was requested by CPIO to provide the requested information to the appellant and vide Accounts Officer's reply dated 23.03.2009, it was reiterated that as informed to the appellant vide Accounts Officer's reply dated 10.02.2009, the information had already been furnished to him through I.D. No.128/08.
9. It is thus seen that while the respondents claimed that the information has been fully disclosed to the appellant, it is the appellant's plea that he has not received the requested information and hence it is a case of deemed-refusal.
10. Given the confused chain of events in this case, it is considered best that the appellant's request for information is met by allowing him to inspect the file/documents relating to his RTI-queries made in his petition dated 17.11.2008 from which he could take copies of the documents he might select.
11. Accordingly, it is directed that within four weeks of the receipt of this order, CPIO, Shri Mohinder Singh, Assistant Registrar, on a day and time to be intimated to the appellant, arrange for the appellant to inspect the above records. Appellant shall also be allowed to take copies of the inspected documents on payment of the usual fee.
12. Appeal disposed of with the above direction.
Complaint No.CIC/AT/C/2009/000556:
13. According to the appellant, he has not received the information, which as per the written-submission of the CPIO, was provided to him by the Accounts Officer, through ID No.128/08.
14. This matter needs to be enquired into to establish as to whether the disclosure as claimed by the CPIO and holder-of-the-information, i.e. the Accounts Officer, CESTAT was actually made.
15. It is directed that Appellate Authority, Shri S. Chandran, Registrar, CESTAT shall hold an enquiry as to whether the plea taken by the holder of the information, viz. the Accounts Officer and the CPIO is true and if it were so, why this matter was not brought up before the Appellate Authority during the first appellate proceeding. Appellate Authority will submit his report to the Commission within two weeks of the receipt of this order.
AT-30092009-03.doc Page 3 of 4
16. Further action under Section 18 shall be taken after the receipt of the Appellate Authority's report.
17. Matter disposed of in the interim.
18. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-30092009-03.doc Page 4 of 4