Central Information Commission
Devendra Kumar Joshi vs Directorate General Of Foreign Trade on 5 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DGOFT/A/2023/120959
Devendra Kumar Joshi .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Directorate General of Foreign Trade,
Udyog Bhawan, H-Wing, Gate No.2,
New Delhi-110011. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.07.2024
Date of Decision : 31.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.02.2023
CPIO replied on : 24.02.2023
First appeal filed on : 24.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.03.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.05.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"Information pertains to Appellate Committee Cell, Department of Commerce.Page 1 of 5
1. Kindly Provide details that How many cases are disposed under Sec 15 of THE FOREIGN TRADE (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1992 by the Central Government in the last 10 years.
2. Kindly Provide details that How many cases are disposed under Sec 16 of THE FOREIGN TRADE (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1992 by the Central Government in the last 10 years.
3. whether these decisions Publicly available
4. who is authority to work as Central Government under section 3,5,16, and 19 of THE FOREIGN TRADE DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION ACT, 1992."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.02.2023 stating as under:
"Information pertains to Appellate Committee Cell, Department of Commerce."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 20.03.2023 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Advocate Dhawesh Phular and Advocate Vivek Kumar, present in person.
Respondent: Md. A. H. Ansari, FTDO-cum-CPIO accompanied by Ms. N. Poorna Push Kala, Dy. DGFT & FAA present in person.
A written submission dated 25.07.2024 filed by Md. A. H. Ansari, FTDO-cum- CPIO is taken on record, contents of which are reproduced below for reference:
"...The then CPIO vide letter dated 19.12.2022 and FAA vide letter dated 20.03.2023 had replied to the RTI as per the RTI Act, 2005 (copy enclosed).
2. Further, it is also submitted that a separate sheet seeking information was found attached with the RTI application Registration Number DGOFT/R/T/23/00059 which is different from the information sought in the referred RTI Registration Number DGOFT/R/T/22/00351.
Page 2 of 53. The information sought in the RTI Registration Number DGOFT/R/T/23/00059 and their information/reply are as under:
Information/reply 1, 2. & 3. The cases disposed under Section 15 and Section 16 of FT(D&R) Act, 1992 are available on DGFT website. The navigation of the website is as under:
DGFT website --> Regulations Order Passed & Action Taken Order Passed by DGFT HQ.
4. The FT(D&R) Act is available on DGFT website. The navigation of the website is as under:
DGFT website --> Regulations --> Acts & Rules --> FT(D&R) Act."
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant restricted his arguments to point No. 4 of RTI application by contending the Respondent has deliberately concealed the information regarding who is authority to work as Central Government under section 3,5,16, and 19 of The Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992. He sought intervention of the Commission with the prayed to direct the Respondent to provide requisite clarification on the said point.
Respondent submitted that reply has already been provided to the Appellant earlier and now vide letter dated 25.07.2024. he handed over a copy of his written submission to the Ld. Counsel of the Appellant during hearing which is taken on record. As regards Point No. 4 of RTI application, he explained that query raised by the Appellant is in the form of seeking clarification which do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act, however, the Appellant can get this clarification by filing a Form in the prescribed format as given in ANF2F available on their hyperlink. He also volunteered to process the said form of the Appellant within 8 weeks from the date of its receipt with the assistance of their FTP cell.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant's main contention in this Appeal during hearing was non-receipt of clarification against Point No. 4 of RTI application as to who is the authority to work as Central Government under section 3,5,16, and 19 of The Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992. In response to which, the Respondent Page 3 of 5 clarified the factual position that information 'as is available' has been provided to the Appellant. As regards point No. 4 of RTI application, the Respondent submitted that deduction/clarification is not covered under the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant.
Adverting to Appellant's insistence seeking clarification on point No. 4, it shall be noted shall that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subjected to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Hence, no relief can be granted in this matter.Page 4 of 5
Nonetheless, the Respondent is directed to fulfil the commitments made during the hearing within the timeframe of 8 weeks from the date of submission of form by the Appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Udyog Bhawan, H-Wing, Gate No.2, New Delhi110011.Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)