Central Information Commission
Deepanshu Kamboj vs Gnctd on 26 November, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2019/105235
CIC/DPTAT/A/2019/105233
Shri Deepanshu Kamboj ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
Through: Sh. Satya Pal Kamboj (father of the
Appellant)
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/O/o. the Director Local Bodies, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Toll Tax Department
Through: Smt. Chitra, Section Officer
2. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner-(Ward-62),
Department of Trade & Taxes (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi)
Through: Sh. Naresh Kumar, A.C.
Date of Hearing : 21.11.2019
Date of Decision : 25.11.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.10.2018& 07.09.2018
PIO replied on : --- & 03.10.2018
First Appeal filed on : 15.11.2018& 11.10.2018
First Appellate Order on : 26.12.2018& 26.11.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 05.02.2019
CIC/GNCTD/A/2019/105235
Appellant vide RTI application dated 15.10.2018 sought information on three
points regarding complete details of entry/exit of the following vehicles into the
State of Delhi through specific toll zones between 28.09.2017 and 01.10.2017,
and whether such vehicles were empty/loaded and about payment of Green Tax
and MCD Tax by them.
1. Vehicle No./Truck No. HR 55 W 6168
2. Vehicle No./Truck No. RJ 14 GB 4142
3. Vehicle No./Truck No. RJ 06 GA 4734
Page 1 of 3
Having not received any response from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal
dated 15.11.2018. FAA vide order dated 26.12.2018 held that:
"... PIO informed that the representative of the applicant had checked the records and
copies of the records consisting of 281 pages were supplied to him on
15.10.2018"...... Applicant may be afforded another opportunity to inspect the record
available in the office on any working day between 10.00 AM to 12.00 Noon."
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with
the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Father of the Appellant, present on behalf of the Appellant, states that the information sought is required to prove his (Father of the Appellant) innocence in a criminal case where he has been falsely implicated under Section 412/34 IPC.
Respondent states that an inspection was conducted by the Appellant and consequently copies of records containing 281 pages were provided to him on 15.10.2018.
Appellant complains that the copies of records thereof provided to him by the Respondent were of no significance to him and were infact irrelevant to his case. Appellant prays the Commission to provide for the information sought in the RTI application to prove his innocence in the court of law. Respondent offers to provide the remaining information to the Appellant.
Decision:
In view of the circumstances of this case, the Commission hereby, directs Smt. Chitra, Section Officer and through her the concerned PIO/Sh. Pankaj Kumar Sharma to provide the available information via revised reply, to the Appellant answering each of the queries raised in the RTI application, in terms of law. The Commission grants opportunity to the concerned PIO to obtain the necessary information from the relevant custodians of records and provide the same to the Appellant within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order, under intimation to the Commission. It is made clear that non-compliance of the stipulated timeline shall attract penal action against the concerned PIO.
The appeal stands disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
CIC/DPTAT/A/2019/105233 Appellant vide RTI application dated 07.09.2018 sought information on two points:-
1. The registration details of the Godown in the name of "D.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., "
under the GST Act 2017:-
Add:- Khasra No.- 1252, 1253/1, 1252/1, 1252/2, 1253/2 , Lal Dora, TikriKalan, Delhi.
2. The guidelines for opening/maintaining a Godown in Delhi, India under the GST Act- 2017.
PIO/Asstt. Commissioner (Ward-62) vide letter dated 03.10.2018 denied information on point no. 1 u/s 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 and informed the Page 2 of 3 Appellant that, information pertaining to query No. 2, was available in the public domain.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 11.10.2018. FAA vide order dated 26.11.2018 upheld the reply of PIO and disposed off the first appeal.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Appellant reiterates the facts and circumstances leading to the present Second Appeal.
Respondent submits that information sought by the Appellant in query no. 1, cannot be made available to him by virtue of law contained in Section 158(1) of the CGST Act 2017. In addition, Respondent claims that a registration certificate contains sensitive and personal information of the party which cannot be disclosed to any third party. As for query no. 2, Respondent submits that no such guidelines are available with them.
Decision:
As far as the information sought vide query no. 1 is concerned, the same appears to be barred by Section 158(1) of the CGST Act 2017, as also submitted by the Respondent. The Commission is also informed by the parties that a criminal case involving the same subject matter is pending adjudication before the competent court of law. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the Appellant must approach the appropriate court of law, before whom the case is pending adjudication, requesting them to summon the desired records for obtaining the information.
As for reply to query no. 2 is concerned, it is astonishing that while in the letter dated 03.10.2018, PIO has stated that information sought is available in public domain, however, during the hearing, Respondent has orally submitted that no such information is available with them. Commission deplores the contradictory remarks made by the Respondent. Therefore, the Commission hereby, directs Sh. Naresh Kumar, A.C. and through him the concerned PIO to provide a revised reply in response to query no. 2 in the RTI application, to the Appellant, in terms of law, within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order, under intimation to the Commission. It is made clear that non- compliance of the stipulated timeline shall attract penal action against the concerned PIO.
The appeal stands disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 3 of 3