Central Information Commission
Bharat Jain vs National Anti-Profiteering ... on 13 January, 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/NAPAA/A/2021/648708
Bharat Jain ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
1. National Anti-profiteering Authority,
RTI Cell, 6th Floor, Tower I,
Jeevan Bharti Building,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Additional Commissioner,
SGST, State Screening Committee
on Anti-Profiteering, RTI Cell,
Vanijya Bhavan, Plot No. 1-3,
Excise and Taxation Department,
Sector-5, Panchkula,
Haryana-134151 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 19/10/2022
Date of Decision : 29/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05/04/2021
CPIO replied on : 04/05/2021
First appeal filed on : 12/08/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 15/09/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.04.2021 seeking the following information:
"......ATR (Action Taken Report) of my complaint No. NAACMP108131 submitted/filed on online portal (www.naa.gov.in) of NAA on 04 March 2020."
The CPIO furnished the following reply to the appellant and also transferred the RTI application on 04.05.2021 to the Additional Commissioner, SGST, State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering, Vanijya Bhavan, Plot No. 1-3, Excise and Taxation Department, Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana-134151 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
"The complaint bearing No. NAACMP108131 filed by the Applicant was forwarded to the Screening Committee, Haryana on 04.03.2020 through our online portal for further examination in accordance with Rule 128 (2) of CGST Rules, 2017." An acknowledgement of the same was already sent to the Applicant on 04.03.2020."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.08.2021. FAA's order dated 15.09.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Dinesh Meena, Secretary & FAA, along with Rajeev Goel, NAA and Vinod Duggal, E/o EIC Haryana State Govt. present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant narrated at length the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application, the sum and substance of which can be gathered from the contents of his Second Appeal, stating inter alia as under:
"I had lodged a complaint with NAA under Section 171 of CGST At 2017 read with CGST Rules 2017 vide complaint no NAACMP108131 dated 04 Mar 2020 through NAA website (www.naa.gov.in). The matter was referred to Haryana 2 State Screening Committee on 04 Mar 2020. On 16 Jun 2020, All documents were submitted to Haryana State Steering Committee ([email protected]) in response to their email. No response or update was received till date despite repeated reminders.
I had also reached out to Secretary NAA through his email address on 10 Mar 2021."
In this backdrop he filed the instant RTI Application and expressed further dissatisfaction with the reply of the CPIO and the FAA's order on the following grounds:
"(C) Under Rule 123(2) of the CGST Rules 2017, a state level Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering shall be constituted in each state by the State Governments, which shall consist of (a) One Officer of the State government, to be nominated by the Commissioner SGST, (b) One Officer of the Central government, to be nominated by the Chief Commissioner CGST. The CPIO/Deputy Commissioner erred in his role in transferring the application to only the Additional Commissioner, SGST, State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering. He erred by not addressing the application to the second member nominated by Chief Commissioner CGST. This aspect was also not evaluated by the Secretary NAA in his capacity as First Appellate Authority.
(D) Under Amended Rule 128(2) of CGST Rules 2017, Haryana State Steering Committee was to investigate and provide recommendations to NAA Standing Committee within 2 months of the receipt of application or such extended period not exceeding further period of 1 month for reasons to be recorded in writing as may be allowed by NAA. The detailed guidelines issued by NAA to Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) vide File No Admn(NAA)/P&M/81/2019/ dated 04 Oct 2019 in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 126 of CGST Rules 2017 and Office Memorandum No F No13/1/2017-Ad-1 dated 09 Sep 2019 Department of Revenue Government of India. The said guidelines inter alia state that i. DGAP shall monitor performance of all State Steering Committees and report to NAA every quarter detailed report on all cases received and disposed off ii. NAA shall monthly review performance of all State Steering Committees iii. NAA shall exercise superintendence, direction and control on DTAP and shall issue directions/instructions in this regard from time to time.
I had in parallel filed a Grievance CBOEC/E/2021/01717 on 05 Apr 2021 on CPGRAMS. Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) INCORRECTLY closed the 3 Grievance on 08 Jul 2021 with comment "The information sought further is not held by this office. The current status of the complaint may be ascertained from the State Screening Committee, Haryana." A follow-up grievance CBOEC/E/2021/06335 dt 24 Sep 2021 was filed. When confronted with the aforesaid NAA office order on superintendence, direction and control over DGAP, a new reply dated 04 Oct 2021 has been received from DGAP with reference to previous complaint dated 05 Apr 2021 that "Haryana State Screening Committee in June 2020 monthly report has held that "the complaint does not relate to profiteering, related to maintenance charges and non-reduction of maintenance charges" No related document was provided by DGAP. Contact numbers provided on DGAP reply are not attended.
The statements and actions of NAA (Deputy Director NAA, Secretary NAA) are not in accordance with these directions and guidelines under the applicable Act, applicable Rules, applicable Notifications, applicable Circulars and Office Orders."
Dinesh Meena, Secretary & FAA, NAA reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and submitted that due action was taken on the averred complaint and information of the same was provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO, NAA provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant was also provided with the complete information on his CPGRAMS complaint vide a letter dated 04.10.2021 of DGAP wherein the action taken and findings of the Haryana State Screening Committee on the profiteering complaint filed by the Appellant was also mentioned in detail.
Now, the arguments of the Appellant during the hearing as well as his grounds of appeal suggest that he is not satisfied with the action taken on the profiteering complaint and seeks to question the administrative merits of the disposal of his complaint, which is not an issue amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act. Here, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
4"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. The Appellant is however advised to pursue his grievance before the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) 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 / 5