Central Information Commission
Sreeraj R vs Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Chennai Zone on 28 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CEXCH/A/2022/643581
Sreeraj R ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Assistant Commissioner, O/o
the Principal Chief
Commissioner of GST and
Central Excise, RTI Cell,
26/1, MG Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600034, Tamilnadu.
CPIO,
Deputy Commissioner, O/o the
Commissioner of GST and
Central Excise, RTI Cell,
Central Revenue Buildings,
Bibikulam, Madurai-625002,
Tamilnadu.
CPIO,
O/o Assistant Commissioner of
GST & Central Excise, Vellore
Division-Vellore, RTI Cell,
Central Revenue Buildings,
Barracks Maidan, Officer's
Line, Vellore-632001,
Tamilnadu.
1
CPIO,
O/o Deputy Commissioner of GST
& Central Excise, Ranipet
Division, SIPCOT Industrial
Complex, Ranipet,
Vellore-632403, Tamilnadu.
CPIO,
O/o Assistant Commissioner of
GST & Central Excise, RTI
Cell, No.14, Municipal Street,
Azeez Nagar, Reddiyarpalayam,
Puducherry-605010. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 27/04/2023
Date of Decision : 27/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28/02/2022
CPIO replied on : 01/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 19/04/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 25/04/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.02.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Please provide the number of GST & Central Excise Commissionerates, GST & Central Excise Sub-Commissionerates and GST & Central Excise Divisions under Tamilnadu and Puducherry Zone.
2. Please provide the number of Customs Commissionerates, Customs Sub- Commissionerates and Customs Divisions under Tamilnadu and Puducherry Zone.2
3. Was there any special instructions issued by CBIC/ Pr. Chief Commissioner (GST & Central Excise/ Customs)/ Chief Commissioner (GST & Central Excise/ Customs)/ Commissioner (GST & Central Excise/ Customs) stating no leave has to be granted on 09.10.2021 (Saturday). If yes, please provide the copy of the letter issued in this regard.
4. Was there any special instructions issued by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai stating no leave has to be granted on 09.10.2021 (Saturday). If yes, please provide the copy of the letter issued in this regard.
5. Please provide the number of leave applications that were not granted either any type of leave or prefix/ suffix on 09.10.2021 (Saturday) by each GST & Central Excise Commissionerates, GST & Central Excise Sub-Commissionerates and GST & Central Excise Divisions under Tamilnadu and Puducherry Zone in respect of employees working under them. If denied leave or prefix/ suffix on 09.10.2021 (Saturday), please furnish reasons for such denial.
6. Please provide the number of leave applications that were not granted either any type of leave or prefix/ suffix on 09.10.2021 (Saturday) by the O/o the Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Nungambakkam, Chennai in respect of employees working under his/her jurisdiction in Chennai Office. If denied leave or prefix/ suffix on 09.10.2021 (Saturday), please furnish reasons for such denial.
7. Please provide the number of leave applications that were not granted either any type of leave or prefix/ suffix on 09.10.2021 (Saturday) by each Customs Commissionerates, Customs Sub-Commissionerates and Customs Divisions under Tamilnadu and Puducherry Zone in respect of employees working under them. If denied leave or prefix/ suffix on 09.10.2021 (Saturday), please furnish reasons for such denial.
8. Please provide the number of leave applications that were not granted either any type of leave or prefix/ suffix on 09.10.2021 (Saturday) by the O/o the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai in respect of employees working under his/her jurisdiction in Chennai Office. If denied leave or prefix/ suffix on 09.10.2021 (Saturday), please furnish reasons for such denial."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 01.03.2022 stating as under:
3"Please refer to your RTI application bearing Registration No. CEXCH/R/T/22/00018 dated 28.02.2022 filed online under the RTI Act, 2005. The information in respect of Point No. 4 and 5 may be available with the CPIO of the Commissionerates coming under the jurisdiction of CCA, Chennai.
Reply to Point No. 1 : There details of GST & Central Excise Commissionerates, Sub Commissionerates and Divisions in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Zone are available in the official website. The web-link is furnished below. http: //centralexcisechennai. gov. in/ Chn_I_2017_Files/ GST%20Trade%20Notice %20No.002.2017%20Dt.20.06.2016.PDF Reply to Point No. 2, 7 & 8: Information sought for does not pertain to this office.
Reply to Point No. 4 : The information sought for may be available with CPIO, Madurai Commissionerate. Hence the Application is being transferred to CPIO Madurai Commissionerate under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, for furnishing the information directly to you.
Reply to Point No. 5: The information sought for may be available with the CPIO of the Commissinerates coming under the jurisdiction of CCA, Chennai. Hence the Application is being transferred to the CPIOs of Chennai North, Chennai South, Chennai Outer, Chennai Audit-I, Chennai Audit-II, Chennai Appeals-I, Chennai Appeals-II, Coimbatore Audit, Coimbatore Appeals, Coimbatore, Salem, Puducherry, Madurai, Trichy Commissionerates coming under the jurisdiction of CCA, Chennai, under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, for furnishing the information directly to you."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2022. FAA's order, dated 25.04.2022 held as under:
"Please refer to your online RTI Appeal bearing Registration No. CEXCH/A/E/22/00014 dated 19.04.2022 filed under RTI Act, 2005. Please also refer to this office letter GCCO/RTI/APP/271/2022-CCAESTT-O/o Pr CC-CGST- ZONE-CHENNAI dated 01.03.2022 wherein your RTI application bearing Registration No. CEXCH/R/T/22/00018 dated 28.02.2022 was transferred to Chennai North, Chennai South, Chennai Outer, Chennai Chennai Audit-11, Chennai Appeals-I, Chennai Appeals-II, Coimbatore Audit, Coimbatore Appeals, Coimbatore, Salem, Puducherry, Madurai, and Trichy Commissionerates coming 4 under the jurisdiction of CCA, Chennai, under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for furnishing the information directly to you.
In this regard, it is informed that the Appeal does not pertain to this Office as you have in your Appeal stated that you have not received replies from some Commissionerates, Sub-Commissionerates, and Divisions. The Appeal should have been filed by you before the appropriate Appellate Authority, i.e. The Appellate Authority, Chennai North, Chennai Outer, Madurai, Trichy and Coimbatore Commissionerate from where reply has not been received and not with this Office. However, your RTI Appeal is being forwarded to The Appellate Authority, Chennai North, Chennai Outer, Madurai, Trichy, and Coimbatore Commissionerate."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
"The CPIO has given satisfactory replies for SI No 1 to 3 and 6 to 7. SI No 4 & 5 have been circulated to other CPIOs for direct reply to the applicant. Since two Commissionerates, one sub-Commissionerate and 26 Divisions have not given reply, First Appeal was filed on 19.04.2022. FAA of Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Coimbatore Commissionerate and Puducherry Commissionerate have promptly acted upon the appeal and provided pending information from their respective CPIOs. Chennai North Commissionerate and 04 Divisions have given their reply. But the divisions under Chennai North Commissionerate have not provided the information. Presently, CPIO of O/o the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Madurai, Tirunelveli Sub-Commissionerate and 22 Divisions (10 Divisions under Madurai and 12 Divisions under Chennai North) as listed below have not given their reply. First appeal also disposed off without complete information.
Information requested: Please provide the number of leave applications that were not granted either any type of leave or prefix/ suffix on 09.10.2021 (Saturday) by each GST & Central Excise Commissionerates, GST & Central Excise Sub-Commissionerates and GST & Central Excise Divisions under Tamilnadu and Puducherry Zone in respect of employees working under them. If denied leave or prefix/ suffix on 09.10.2021 (Saturday), please furnish reasons for such denial. Was there any special Instructions issued by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai stating no leave has to be granted on 09.10.2021 (Saturday). If yes, please provide the copy of the letter Issued in this regard. (Applicable only to CPIO of Madurai Commissionerate) 5 The reply can be given in a numeric value (number). But the CPIOs have not replied yet. I had already made payment to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (the apex body). CPIO of 0/o the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Madurai has further asked for payment of RTI fee through Demand draft or Indian Postal Order. The CPIO of has not provided any online link for the payment. Further, I have preferred an online RTI for ease of payment and convenience. CPIO of 0/o the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Madurai has sent a reply (copy attached) spending Rs.25/- for Registered Letter with Acknowledgement Card. As the reply can be given in a numeric value (number), they have not furnished the reply and wanted to trouble the applicant though further payment; eventhough the higher authority (0/o the Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai) has given directives to furnish the reply directly to the applicant. Information from one Commissionerate, one Sub-Commissionerate and 22 Divisions have not been received yet. Details as follows:-
Commissionerate - Madurai Sub-Commissionerate Tirunelveli 12 Divisions under Chennai North Commissionerate Thiruvottiyur, Madhavaram, Royapuram, Parrys Egmore, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar, Ambattur, AnnaNagar, Puraswalkam, Nungambakkam, Triplicane, Mylapore 10 Divisions under Madurai Commissionerate Madurai-1, Madurai-11, Dindigul-1, Dindigul-11, Virudhunagar, Sivakasi, Rajapalayam, Tirunelveli, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Rajni Menon, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO, O/o Pr. Commissioner of Customs, GST & CX, Tamil Nadu & Puducherry Zone along with P Murugesh, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO, Vellore; S Ramesh, Assistant Commmissioner & CPIO, Puducherry; Raghunath Gali, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO, Madurai present through video conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the instant appeal is bereft of merit as the Appellant seeks to access information related to more than a dozen public authorities i.e GST & Central Excise Commissionerates, GST & Central Excise Sub- Commissionerates and GST & Central Excise Divisions as well as Customs Commissionerates, Customs Sub-Commissionerates and Customs Divisions under 6 Tamilnadu and Puducherry Zone. Moreover, his Second Appeal seeks relief with respect to Commissionerate - Madurai ; Sub-Commissionerate Tirunelveli ; 12 Divisions under Chennai North Commissionerate i.e Thiruvottiyur, Madhavaram, Royapuram, Parrys Egmore, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar, Ambattur, AnnaNagar, Puraswalkam, Nungambakkam, Triplicane, Mylapore and 10 Divisions under Madurai Commissionerate i.e Madurai-1, Madurai-11, Dindigul-1, Dindigul-11, Virudhunagar, Sivakasi, Rajapalayam, Tirunelveli, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin. Further, it was bemusing to note that the Appellant seeks to rope in all of these public authorities to merely seek for clarifications based on speculative queries relating to what appears to be a frivolous data. Yet, multiple CPIOs have attempted to facilitate the Appellant with factual replies and information, in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act.
The Appellant was therefore advised about the non-conformity of his RTI Application to the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as well as Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In furtherance of the hearing proceedings, the Appellant shall note 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 subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(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 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;.."
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:
7"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) The averred judgment also records the following observations against impractical demands for information under the RTI Act as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should 8 not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....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...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
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 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 9 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Having observed as above, no action is warranted in the matter. The Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in the future.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10