Complaint No. CIC/SB/C/2016/000138-BJ- Final. Case: R.K. Jain Vs CPIO & Accounts Officer Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and Ors.. Central Information Commission

Case Number:Complaint No. CIC/SB/C/2016/000138-BJ- Final
Party Name:R.K. Jain Vs CPIO & Accounts Officer Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and Ors.
Judges:Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
Issue:Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 19(5), 20(1), 4, 5(4), 5(5), 6(3), 7(1)
Judgement Date:April 18, 2017
Court:Central Information Commission
 
FREE EXCERPT

Court Information Central Information Commission Cases
Judgment Date 18-Apr-2017
Party Details R.K. Jain Vs CPIO & Accounts Officer Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and Ors.
Case No Complaint No. CIC/SB/C/2016/000138-BJ- Final
Judges Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
Acts Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 19(5), 20(1), 4, 5(4), 5(5), 6(3), 7(1)

Decision

Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner

FACTS:

1. The complainant, vide his RTI application sought information on 2 points (A and B) regarding copies of all order sheets/record of proceedings, all notes put up by registry with orders thereon, orders/directions for out of turn listing of matter, date on which matter was mentioned, mention memo and directions thereon, etc in relation to several excise appeals mentioned in the RTI application, list of files from which aforementioned information was provided etc.

2. The CPIO/Accounts Officer, CESTAT, New Delhi vide its letter dated 30.07.2015, transferred the RTI application to AR, Excise, CESTAT, New Delhi under Section 6(3) and Section 5(4) r/w Section 5(5) of the RTI Act, 2005 with the request to provide information on or before 14.08.2015. Dissatisfied on not receiving any satisfactory response, the complainant approached the FAA. Subsequently, the CPIO/Accounts Officer, CESTAT, New Delhi vide its letter dated 16.09.2015 forwarded a reminder letter to the AR, Excise, CESTAT, New Delhi to immediately provide the information. The FAA, vide its order dated 22.09.2015 also directed the concerned CPIO to collect the information from the concerned officials and provide the same to the complainant within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Facts emerging during the hearing on 02.03.2017:

3. The following were present:

Complainant: Mr. R.K. Jain (M. 9810077977);

Respondent: Mr. V.P. Pandey, CPIO & Assistant Registrar (M: 9811559708)

4. The complainant referred to his RTI application and stated that he had sought information regarding copies of all order sheets/record of proceedings, all notes put up by registry with orders thereon, orders/directions for out of turn listing of matter in relation to several appeals mentioned in his RTI application. It was submitted that no satisfactory response was provided to him. It was also submitted that the order of the FAA, directing the CPIO to provide information was also not complied with. The complainant referred to his written submissions dated 02.03.2017 and stated that the CPIO vide its letter dated 02.05.2016 provided 86 pages of incomplete information to him after a delay of 245 days even though information was ready with the CPIO on 10.11.2015 as reflected in the date of signing by the Assistant Registrar (Excise Branch). It was alleged that the CPIO deliberately held back the information for 170 days to obstruct the same. The complainant submitted that subsequently after inspection of files on 06.10.2016, 304 pages of additional information was provided to him on 07.11.2016 in relation to four cases whereas earlier only 86 pages of information was provided to him on eight cases. It was also submitted that there was a delay of 437 days in providing balance information. The complainant submitted that the additional benches at Allahabad and Chandigarh were established on 01.09.2015 and 01.12.2015 respectively hence there was no...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL