Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rajesh J Parekh vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence on 30 July, 2024

                             केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/DRINT/C/2023/625191


Rajesh J Parekh                                       ....निकायतकताग /Complainant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


CPIO,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
No 8 P, 1st Stage, 3rd Block, HBR Layout,
Opp. BDA Complex, Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560043.                                       ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                     :    25.07.2024
Date of Decision                    :    30.07.2024


INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on            :    18.03.2023
CPIO replied on                     :    10.04.2023
First appeal filed on               :    12.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order   :    09.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    Nil

Information sought

:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.03.2023 seeking the following information:

Reference to the search and seizure pertaining to Parekh Industries Ltd on 9th & 10th July 2021 at its office, in Mumbai, I understand that DRI, Bangalore Zonal Unit has requested government of Indonesia through the Indian Embassy, Jakarta to carry out verification of the certificate of Origin pertaining to Potassium Gold Cyanide.

In this regard, I need the complete set of documents/correspondences made by DRI, BZU, and the replies received from the Embassy of India in Jakarta.

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 10.04.2023 stating as under:

2. Your kind attention is invited to Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. In view of the said legal provisions, and due to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) being listed in Schedule II of the RTI Act, your application is hereby rejected.

Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 09.05.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri Nitin Krishna Shenoy, Dy Director & CPIO present through Video-Conference.

Respondent submitted that they have categorically informed the Complainant that DRI being exempt organisation under Section 24 of the RTI Act cannot part with the information.

Decision:

The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no scope of any relief and agrees with the reply of CPIO that the Respondent Public Authority is an Page 2 of 4 exempt organization as per Second Schedule of Section 24 of the RTI Act. Further, the material on record does not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter, for which reason, the Commission finds no reason to invoke the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to allow the disclosure of information, if any. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provision of Section 24(1) is reproduced as under:

"24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.--

(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:..."

Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:

" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."

In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.

The Complaint is disposed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:

The FAA, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, No 8 P, 1st Stage, 3rd Block, HBR Layout, Opp. BDA Complex, Kalyan Nagar Post, Bangalore - 560043.

Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)