Central Information Commission
Mrr K Jain vs Cbec on 13 July, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI-110 067
TEL: 011-26179548
Decision No.CIC/SS/C/2012/000435/SB/ 00025
Appeal No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000435/SB /
Dated: 13.07.2015
Complainant: Shri R.K.Jain,
1512-B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg,
Opp. ICICI Bank of Defence Colony,
New Delhi 110003.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer,
Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, West Block-2, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi - 110066.
Date of Hearing: 13.07.2015
ORDER
1. Shri R.K.Jain, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 07.07.2011 with the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal seeking the following information;
A. Inspection of all quotations/ sanctions received or issued for the items purchased during the year 2009-10, 2010-2011 and 2011-12; B. Details of internal audit conducted during 2009-10, 2010-2011and 2011-12 and the name of the authority who conducted such audits and dates of internal audit;
C. Inspection of counterfoils of TR-5 (Cheque Issue Register) for the year 2009-10, 2010-2011and 2011-12;
D. Inspection of the Budget file for the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12; E. Inspection of the cheque register for payments made to private parties for the years 2009-10, 2010-2011and 2011-12.
F. Inspection of all records, documents, files, registers and note sheets relating to information sought above.
2. Though, the copies of CPIO's response and first appeal of the complainant are not available in the file, the complainant has stated that the CPIO dismissed all pending RTI applications of the complainant by one single order on the ground that he is a misuse of the RTI. The FAA vide order dated 08.11.2011 directed the CPIO to examine each of the applications and furnish information where available and order should be passed by him independently in respect of each applications. The complainant filed complaint dated 12.04.2012 with the Commission on the ground that CPIOs have deliberately and malafidely not provided the information in spite of FAA's order.
Hearing:
3. The complainant Shri R.K. Jain and Shri Rajender Prasad, CPIO, CESTAT were present in person.
4. During the hearing the complainant submitted that he wants to withdraw his complaint as the information sought by him has either lost its utility due to passage of time or it has become outdated.
Decision:
5. The complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.
6. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer