File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001329. Case: Manoj Jain Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai. Central Information Commission

Case NumberFile No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001329
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Manoj Jain, Adv. and For Respondents: Shri Ashok Sharma, Addl. Commissioner
JudgesM.L. Sharma, I.C.
IssueRight to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 4(2)
Citation2013 (296) ELT 186 (CIC)
Judgement DateAugust 26, 2013
CourtCentral Information Commission

Order:

  1. Facts: Heard today dated 26-8-2013. Appellant present. The public authority is represented by Shri Ashok Sharma, Addl. Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Mumbai (FAA). In the RTI application dated 26-2-2013, the appellant had sought the following information:--

  2. Reason(s) for not putting policy of transfer and postings of Preventive Officers and Superintendents in the R&I of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai on website in compliance of Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.

  3. Till what time policy of transfer and postings of Preventive Officers and Superintendents in the R&I of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai is likely to put up on website in compliance of Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.

  4. Reason(s) for not putting history of postings of Preventive Officers and Superintendent in the R&I of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai on website in compliance of Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.

  5. Till what time history of postings of Preventive Officers and Superintendent, is likely to be put up on website by the R&I of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai in compliance of Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.

  6. Up to what time minutes of meetings of all meetings held in last 10 years or more, related to transfers and postings of Preventive Officers and Superintendents in the R&I of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai is also likely to be put up on website in compliance of Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.

  7. The CPIO had initially refused to entertain RTI application on a technical ground. However, on appeal, the First Appellate Authority had set-aside the CPIO's order and had directed him to pass an appropriate order as per law. Thereupon, the CPIO vide order dated 3-4-2013 had taken the view that the queries raised by the appellant in Paras 1, 2, 3 and 5 did not fall in the ambit of the Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, he had provided some information on para 4 of the RTI application.

  8. On a careful perusal of the queries raised in the RTI...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT