Case: Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange Vs R.K. Jain. Central Information Commission
| Judges | A.N. Tiwari, I.C. |
| Issue | Right to information Act |
| Citation | 2010 (255) ELT 77 |
| Judgement Date | June 04, 2010 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
Order:
A.N. Tiwari, I.C.
-
Respondents, viz. Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (ATFE) have filed a petition for reconsideration/review of this Commission's order dated 26-3-2010 in the matter of the RTI-application of the appellant, Shri R.K. Jain, dated 11-8-2009. Respondents have filed this petition pursuant to the order of the Delhi High Court dated 23-4-2010, in which permission was granted to them to bring this matter before the Commission for reconsideration.
-
Matter was accordingly heard on 19-5-2010 in the presence of the appellant, Shri R.K. Jain and the review-petitioners represented by their Counsel, Shri Balaji Subramanian.
-
In the Commission's order dated 26-3-2010, CPIO, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange was directed to provide to the appellant the information requested by him in his RTI-application dated 11-8-2009.
-
The review-petitioners' point was that when the hearing - which resulted in the Commission's order dated 26-3-2010 - was conducted, the Tribunal had not filed its counter-statement, as a result of which important facts which could have a substantial bearing on the decision could not be brought to the attention of the Commission.
-
One of the important facts review-petitioners have highlighted as reason for their failure to disclose the information requested by the appellant through his RTI-application dated 11-8-2009, was poor staffing. ATFE claims to be understaffed. It is their case that the range of the information appellant has asked includes not only copies of the orders, but also interim-orders, adjournments, stay orders, pre-deposit orders and final orders for the period of approximately 141/2 months. Collecting and collating this variety of information could be a difficult and onerous task. They have cited Section 7(9) in support of non-disclosure of this variety and range of information. It is also their case that the information sought by the appellant serves no public interest as spelt-out in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Review-petitioners have urged that after dispatching the orders to the parties and those entitled to receive the copies, the Tribunal did not maintain any Guard File or Orders File, from which the information required by appellant could be given to him. It is their submission that even if only orders -meaning final orders - were to be given to the appellant, it would be from 2536 original files-a large number by any account. If interim and other such orders are to...
To continue reading
Request your trial