File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001329. Case: Manoj Jain Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai. Central Information Commission
Case Number | File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001329 |
Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Manoj Jain, Adv. and For Respondents: Shri Ashok Sharma, Addl. Commissioner |
Judges | M.L. Sharma, I.C. |
Issue | Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 4(2) |
Citation | 2013 (296) ELT 186 (CIC) |
Judgement Date | August 26, 2013 |
Court | Central Information Commission |
Order:
-
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:--
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
On a careful perusal of the queries raised in the RTI...
To continue reading
Request your trial