Central Information Commission
Manisha Muley vs Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, ... on 10 June, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. / ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:-
CIC/DOREV/C/2018/104481-BJ
CIC/CCEM1/A/2018/132926-BJ
Ms. Manisha Muley
.... िशकायतकता /Complainant
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue, North Block
New Delhi - 110001
2. CPIO & Under Secretary
Ad. III A & B, Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue, CBIC, Ground Floor
Hudco Vishala Building, Bhikaji Cama Place
R. K. Puram, New Delhi - 110066
3. CPIO
Assistant Commissioner, PCCO
GST & CX, Mumbai Zone
Office of the Chief Commissioner of GST & CX, Mumbai Zone
115, New Central Excise Building, M K Road
Church gate Mumbai - 400020
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.06.2019
Date of Decision : 10.06.2019
ORDER
RTI - I File No. CIC/DOREV/C/2018/104481-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 29.08.2017 CPIO's response 26.09.2017 Page 1 of 5 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 19.01.2018 FACTS:
The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information on 05 points in respect of Writ Petition No. 18501 of 2004 filed by the Board before Hon'ble A.P. High Court and affidavit filed by the CCE, Mumbai before Hon'ble CAT, Mumbai in OA No. 454/2006, whether the information mentioned at Serial No. 01 (as mentioned in the RTI application) for filing of Writ Petition No. 18501 of 2004 by the Board before Hon'ble A.P. High Court was correct or not, etc. The CPIO, US to the Govt. of India, vide its letter dated 18.09.2017 for points 01 to 05, transferred the application to the CPIO & US (Ad. IIIB), under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for furnishing information directly to the Complainant. Subsequently, the CPIO, Ad IIIA & B, vide its letter dated 26.09.2017, stated that since Ad. IIIB Section of CBEC did not deal with cadre restructuring of CBEC, no information in this regard available in their Section. Requested information might be available with the Ad. IV Section of CBEC and further transferred the application to the CPIO Ad. IV, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - II File No. CIC/CCEM1/A/2018/132926-BJ Date of RTI application 29.08.2017 CPIO's response 18.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 29.01.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 06.03.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 24.05.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 05 points in respect of Writ Petition No. 18501 of 2004 filed by the Board before Hon'ble A.P. High Court and affidavit filed by the CCE, Mumbai before Hon'ble CAT, Mumbai in OA No. 454/2006, whether the information mentioned at Serial No. 01 (as mentioned in the RTI application) for filing of Writ Petition No. 18501 of 2004 by the Board before Hon'ble A.P. High Court was correct or not, etc. The CPIO, US to the Govt. of India, vide its letter dated 18.09.2017 for points 01 to 05, transferred the application to the CPIO & US (Ad. IIIB), under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for furnishing information directly to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 06.03.2018, for point 01 referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. He further directed the CPIO, CCO, GST & CX, Mumbai Zone, to provide information available with their office, with respect to point no. 04 of the RTI application dated 29.08.2017, to the Appellant within 7 working days.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:Page 2 of 5
The following were present:
Complainant / Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Nagendra Kumar, US, New Delhi, Mr. V. Ganesh Kumar, US, New Delhi, Mr. Jai Parvesh, Inspector, New Delhi and Mr. Joseph P. Kuriakose, Supdt., New Delhi, in person and Mr. Amit Kr. Sharma, Dy. Comm. Addl. Charge of CPIO, Mumbai through VC;
The Complainant / Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent (MoF/DoR, New Delhi) reiterated the submissions of the CPIO / FAA whereas the Respondent (Mumbai) submitted that the information on point No. 04 had been furnished to the Complainant / Appellant. On perusal of the RTI application and the response of the Board, it is evident that complete and factual information with regard to the writ petition referred to by the Complainant / Appellant had not been examined and reply furnished to her. Needless to add, there had been lack of application of mind and due diligence in answering the RTI queries raised by her. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, M/o Finance, D/o Revenue, dated 03.06.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/CCEM1/A/2018/132926-BJ) wherein it was submitted that the RTI application dated 29.08.2017 of the Appellant was transferred to Ad. III Section under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, to provide information to the applicant directly. It was also pertinent to mention that in this regard no First Appeal had been received in their Section.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, O/o the Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and CX, Mumbai Zone, Mumbai dated 04.06.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/CCEM1/A/2018/132926-BJ) wherein it was submitted that the Ministry vide letter dated 03.08.2001 had informed that "in this restructuring no staff would be retrenched or declared surplus. The abolition of posts will be done by up-gradation of posts into the next higher grade and by not filling the post in the lower grade. A onetime relaxation has also been obtained for filling all the vacancies by way of promotions in all cadres." Further, the Ministry vide letter F. No. A-12034/15/2002-Ad. III - B dated 07.02.2002 intimated that in terms of approval of the Cabinet, 3169 posts in the grade of Inspector Gr. 'C' and 4187 posts in the grade of Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) Gr. 'C' Ministerial Cadre, had been abolished. Subsequent to the above, the Ministry issued letters dated 29.05.2007 and 03.09.2007 which clarified that the consequential vacancies which arose in the feeder grade were required to be filled up. Therefore, both the letters were provided to the applicant with regard to point no. 04 of the RTI application dated 29.08.2017.
The Commission felt that correct and timely response is the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as Page 3 of 5 penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 it has held that:
"The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:
7."it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only.
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
The Complainant / Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate her claims further.Page 4 of 5
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, it is evident that cogent and precise reply had not been furnished to the Complainant / Appellant explaining the factual position. The Commission therefore directs Member (Admn.), CBIC to depute a responsible and senior official of appropriate seniority to examine the RTI application and furnish a consolidated response reflecting the correct and factual status to the Complainant / Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Complaint / Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 10.06.2019 Copy to:
1. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001
2. The Chairman, CBIC, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001
3. Mr. A. K. Pandey, Member (Admn.), CBIC, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 Page 5 of 5