Central Information Commission
Devendra Kumar Joshi vs Directorate General Of Foreign Trade on 29 September, 2022
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/DGOFT/A/2022/636422
Devendra Kumar Joshi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Directorate General of Foreign
Trade, RTI Cell, Udyog Bhawan,
H-Wing, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi-110011 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/09/2022
Date of Decision : 28/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 30/05/2022
First appeal filed on : 10/06/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 04/07/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.05.2022 seeking the following information:
1. "Kindly provide copy of Circular No. 01/92/180/13/AM19/PCVII/TR No. 34 dated 14.05.2019 issued by DGFT, HIO, New Delhi which directed all regional 1 authorities of DGFT to review all cases wherein refund of TED has been granted on the supplies made prior to the date of ARO.
2. As per the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14, whether refund of terminal excise duty was granted to companies for the goods that are procured prior to the issuance of an Advanced Release Order (ARO) on the basis of DFIA. If yes name of companies and quantum.
3. Whether any demand is raised as per Circular No. 01/92/180/13/AM19/ PCVII/TR No. 34 dated 14.05.2019.
4. Whether Demand was raised to all the companies or to a few selected companies.
5. Kindly provide list of such companies mentioned in 3-4 above and the quantum of demand."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 30.05.2022 stating as follows:-
(i) "Copy of letter No. 01/92/180/13/AM 19/PC VI dated 14.5.2019 is attached.
(ii) Your application has been transferred to all RAs working under DGFT for furnishing suitable reply in respect of point 2 to 5."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.06.2022. FAA's order dated 04.07.2022 held as under:-
1. "Your RTI application No. DGOFT/R/E/22/000115 dated 6.5.2022 was forwarded through RTI portal to 4 Zonal offices of DGFT i.e. Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai and CLA, New Delhi as CPI0 can forward application to only upto 5 offices.
2. DGFT Circular No. 01 /92/180/13/AM/19/PCVUTR 34 dated 14.5.2019 was forwarded to 34 RAs vide e-mail dated 14.5.2019 and to 7 DCs of SEZ. As per the available records, the information sought in the Appeal has not been compiled."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Represented by Advocate Bhavesh present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Harish Chandra Joshi, FTDO & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant while reiterating the contents of RTI Application expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that complete specific clarifications in response to points no. 2- 5 were not furnished by the CPIO till date. He further harped on the fact that in response to points no. 5, the CPIO instead of providing the complete records of information sought for has only furnished a list containing the names of the Companies. In this regard, the Commission counselled the Rep. of Appellant that the queries raised by the Appellant on the said points concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) as he has sought for clarifications and not the specific information per se.
The CPIO submitted that the relevant available information /desired clarifications have already been provided to the Appellant by the various RA offices to whom the RTI Applications were forwarded in July, 2022. No additional information was left at their end. Upon Commission's instance, the CPIO also facilitated clarifications on the issues raised by the Appellant through the instant RTI Application.
Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission upon scrutinizing the contents of the instant RTI Application at points no. 2-5 does not find any scope of action in the matter with respect to the information sought for as well as the reply of the CPIO thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant on the said points do not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for clarifications and interpretation to be drawn by the CPIO based on his queries as quoted in RTI Application; to that extent the factual reply provided by the CPIO is in line and with the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
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.3
In this regard, his attention is also 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, provided 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) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"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....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 4 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 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6