Central Information Commission
Shashi Kumar Choudhary vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs, Patna on 25 March, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.:- CIC/CCPPZ/C/2017/173960-BJ
Mr. Shashi Kumar Choudhary
.... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Deputy Commissioner, Customs (P) Division
Office of the Dy. Commissioner Custom (P) Division
A - 3/113, Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Vibhuti Khnad
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow - 226010
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.03.2019
Date of Decision : 25.03.2019
Date of filing of RTI application 26.07.2017
CPIO's response 17.08.2017
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 26.10.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points inter alia regarding the copy of the proposal, if any, received by the adjudicatory authority for auction of the seized 422 bags of Betul Nuts weighing 29540 Kgs, copy of the approval order/ permission given by the adjudicating authority i.e., the Addl. Commissioner, Customs (Prev.) Commissionerate, Lucknow for auction of the said seized 422 bags of Betul Nuts Bags, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 17.08.2017 provided a point wise response to the Complainant.
Dissatisfied by the response the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Sengar, Jt. Comm. through VC;Page 1 of 3
The Complainant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Kapil Dev, Network Engineer NIC studio at Kolkata confirmed the absence of the Complainant. The Respondent reiterated the submissions of the CPIO and explained that a copy of its written submission along with enclosures had again been sent to the Complainant for his ready reference. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 15.03.2019 wherein it was started that subsequent to providing the reply dated 17.08.2017, the Complainant sent another letter dated 27.08.2017 alleging that the enclosures were not attached with their office letter dated 17.09.2019(# as contained in their letter). In response to this the office had replied vide letter dated 20.09.2017 and submitted that enclosures were already attached with the letter dated 17.08.2017. It was further explained that the Complainant did not exhaust the proper channel available to him i.e., the First Appellate Authority. Furthermore, the Complainant had submitted an IPO of Rs. 10/- only. However, the enclosures pertaining to all the points was provided vide letter dated 17.08.2017 within 30 days of receiving the application u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, it was submitted that the Complainant was misleading the department. Moreover, in compliance with the notice of hearing dated 06.03.2019 the documents were again sent to the Complainant.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 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 was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:Page 2 of 3
"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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The 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 Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 25.03.2019 Page 3 of 3