Central Information Commission
G. V. Mohan Kumar vs Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, ... on 1 September, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीयअपीलसंख्या/Second Appeal No.CIC/CCECN/A/2020/102039
Mr. G.V. Mohan Kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ...प्रनतवािी/Respondent
O/o. the Commissioner of GST &
Central Excise, Chennai South
Commissionerate, MHU Complex
No. 692, 5th Floor, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai-600035
CPIO
O/o. the Pr. Chief Commissioner of
GST & Central Excise, Tamil Nadu
& Puducherry Zone, 26/1, MG
Road Nungambakkam, Chennai-
600034
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 14-10-2019 FA : 27-11-2019 SA : 13-01-2020
CPIO : 08-11-2019 FAO : 18-12-2019 Hearing: 27-08-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)O/o. the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Nandanam, Chennai. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
"I am herewith sending a copy of my letter dt.9.9.2019 addressed to the Chief Commissioner (GST - Central Excise), which was booked by Speed post vide consignment number RT3226891301N on 9.9.2019. As per Track consignment of India Post Dept, it was delivered on 10.9.2019. It is more than one month, but there appear to be no action taken on my letter dt.9.9.2019. So, I kindly request you to provide the Information Page 1 of 4 about the action taken by the Chief Commissioner, GST (Central Excise) on my letter."
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 27-11-2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority upheld CPIO's reply vide FAO dated 18-12-2019 and disposed of his first appeal. He has filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. Adv. Senphamil Arasu (Representative of Appellant) attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondents, Shri Abdul Raheem, CPIO/Ass. Commissioner, Chennai South GST Commissionerate & Ms Rajni Menon, CPIO/Ass. Commissioner, Tamil Nadu & Puducherry attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondents submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The representative of appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI Application and submitted that the desired information has not been provided to the appellant by the respondent on his RTI application dated 14.10.2019. He further discussed the redressal of grievances.
6. Ms. Rajni Menon submitted that vide their letter dated 08.11.2019, they have already informed the appellant that no such officer by the name Shri A Ramu working in the jurisdiction of Chennai South GST Commissionerate and therefore the complaint dated 09.09.2019 filed by the appellant against Shri A Ramu regarding holding the post of Treasure of Chennai Football Association without the prior sanction of the Govt has been forwarded to the office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, 26/1, Nungambakkam for further action at their end. She further submitted that the concerned CPIO vide final reply dated 01.01.2020 had informed the appellant that "Shri A. Ramu, Superintendent had vide his letter dated 19.06.2018 informed that he is going to contest in election for the post of Treasurer in Chennai Football Association (CFA) which was slated on 30.06.2018 and that the prior intimation submitted by Shri A. Ramu well in advance before the election date was processed and post facto permission was given by the Principal Commissioner on 26.12.2019 and hence it was informed to the appellant that the complaint about non-compliance of Rule 15 (1)(c) of CCS Page 2 of 4 (Conduct) Rules, 1964 by the Govt servant, Shri A Ramu is not sustainable." She also submitted that aggrieved with the above reply, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 09.01.2020 vide which he has raised fresh issue and the FAA vide order dated 29.01.2020 has informed the appellant that the process of appeal cannot be used to raise fresh issues before the appellate authority. She furthermore submitted that the relevant information as per available records has already been provided to the appellant, rest is his grievances which cannot be redressed here as the same is beyond the scope of RTI Act.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding action taken by Chief Commissioner, GST (Central Excise) on his complaint dated 09.09.2019. The Commission further observes that the appellant has filed a complaint dated 09.09.2019 against Shri A. Ramu, Superintendent of GST & CE who does not work under the jurisdiction of Chennai South GST Commissionerate and same has already been informed by the respondent. The Commission also observes that the appellant has already been informed about the action taken against Shri A Ramu and his complaint has also been forwarded to the office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, 26/1, Nungambakkam for further action. The Principal Chief Commissioner of GST has considered the said complaint and provided adequate information to the appellant. In view of the post action approval, no action has been taken against Shri A Ramu. Therefore to the extent of the information sought in the instant RTI Application is concerned, the said complaint has been examined and action taken has already been informed, beyond this a broad action taken has also been informed which is not expected under RTI Act from CPIO. Further, at the stage of first appeal, the RTI Application is not supposed to be expanded and FAA is required to adjudicate only to the extent of RTI Application.
8. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that relevant information has already been provided as exists on record. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 410. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकुमारगुप्ता)
Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त)
निनां क / Date : 27-08-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अनिप्रमानितसत्यानपतप्रनत)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाग ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
O/o. the Commissioner of GST
& Central Excise, Chennai South
Commissionerate, MHU Complex No. 692,
5th Floor, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai-600035
2. CPIO
O/o. the Pr. Chief Commissioner
of GST & Central Excise,
Tamil Nadu & Puducherry Zone,
26/1, MG Road Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600034
3. Mr. G.V. Mohan Kumar
Page 4 of 4