Central Information Commission
R. K. Jain vs Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate ... on 18 January, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/ITALB/A/2019/121791/CESAT
R K Jain ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
O/o. the Customs Excise &
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24-12-2018 FA : 25-03-2019 SA : 09-05-2019
CPIO : 24-01-2019 FAO : 25-04-2019 Hearing : 08-01-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o. the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad seeking following information:-
A. "Please provide details of the cases in which order has been passed/issued by any Member of the CESTAT, Allahabad (including touring members) beyond a period of 4 months/6 months of the hearing, without the permission of the Hon'ble President as required under order no. 4 of 2009. Please also provide the name of the parties, Appeal nos. & date of final hearing and date of pronouncement of order with a copy thereof along with composition of the Bench. This information may be provided from 01-01-2017 till the date of providing the information.
B. Please provide details of the cases which have been relisted for clarification or otherwise in which the orders were reserved or the reasoned orders were to follow after pronouncement of operative order Page 1 of 5 in the open court at CESTAT, Allahabad. This information may be provided from 01-01-2017 with appeal no., date of first reserving the order, composition of the bench, the Member with whom the reserve order was pending, the Member who sought the clarification, date of relisting of each case & the current status of each case. Etc."
2. The CPIO responded on 24-01-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 25-03-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 25-04-2019. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information. Hearing:
3. Since the appellant, Mr. R. K. Jain is no more, therefore, the matter is being adjudicated based on the merit of the case. The documents annexed with the 2nd appeal are taken on record. Mr. Manas Kumar Sinha, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent reiterated their reply dated 24-01-2019 as follows:-
"(i) Paras A, B, C & E:- Information received from SPS/PA of Hon'ble Members Copies available of pages-4 Nos.
(ii) Para D:- Information received from Court Master Copies available-2086 Nos. (Approx.) of pages-4 Nos."
5. The respondent further submitted that on being asked to make payment of Rs. 4172 for supplying 2086 pages of information, the appellant had disputed the no. of relevant pages instead of depositing the requisite fee. Decision:
6. Primarily, the matter pertains to disclosure of basic case details of CESTAT such as listing of cases, status of cases, hearing dates, order sheets, final orders etc. On this point, this Commission observes that the public authority owes a duty to disseminate this information widely suo motu to the public so as to make it easily accessible. These details should be regularly updated on the website of the CESTAT. With regard to information enumerated or required to be enumerated under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) of RTI Act, 2005, the public authority will have to act in a pro-active manner. In view of this, the Secretary, Department of Revenue is advised to make necessary arrangements so as to enable dissemination of information to the litigants, tax payers and other stakeholders. He should consider streamlining this process, positively within a period of three months.
Page 2 of 57. As far as the CPIO's reply is concerned, this Commission observes that the CPIO cannot be expected to make a judgment to find out the relevant documents as contemplated by the appellant. Therefore, the CPIO is not supposed to interpret information; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications. Hence, the queries seeking answers and explanations from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:-
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context, a reference is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497,wherein it was held as under:-
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens.
But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any Page 3 of 5 electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
8. In light of the factual matrix of the instant appeal and the aforesaid case-laws, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO was not obliged to provide any further clarification to the appellant other than to quote the RTI fee @ Rs. 2/per page as per the RTI Rules, 2012. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु )
दनांक / Date 08-01-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स#ािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
O/o. the Customs Excise &
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Old Red Building, 38 MG Marg
Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211001
2. R K Jain Page 5 of 5