CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000250
Dated, the 13th August, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Anil Kaushik
Respondents : Central Excise & Customs Department
Pursuant to Commission’s notice dated 05.05.2009, this matter
came up for hearing on 04.06.2009. Both parties were present.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 19.12.2007 contained request
for seven items of information ⎯ all pertaining to communication
between officers of the Central Excise Department in relation to certain
seizure of goods which was ordered by the Department. The High Court
of Gujarat later directed the release of the goods.
3. On being denied the disclosure of the requested information
through CPIO’s communication dated 21.01.2008, appellant approached
the Appellate Authority, who passed a curious order stating “since the
information sought relates to the appellant the same is required to be
granted subject to restrictions imposed by the RTI Act. Accordingly,
the CPIO is directed to furnish copies of the information sought within
15 days of the decision subject to the restriction provided in the RTI
Act.”
4. It was somewhat odd that Appellate Authority rather than
deciding himself whether the exemption-Sections under the RTI Act
applied to the requested information, left the discretion to the CPIO,
while at the same time, inferring that since the information related to
the appellant it was required to be granted. Such inconclusive orders
are entirely avoidable.
5. As a result of the above order of the Appellate Authority dated
24.04.2008, the CPIO promptly passed another order dated 15.07.2008
holding that the requested information could not be disclosed as they
attracted the bar under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Nowhere did the
CPIO explain as to how the disclosure of information would impede the
process of investigation or prosecution.
6. Appellant thereafter filed another first-appeal on 02.09.2008
before the Appellate Authority. But this appeal was dismissed as
AT-13082009-01.doc
Page 1 of 3
time-barred by the AA. Hence, the second-appeal before the
Commission.
7. During the hearing, the CPIO urged the Commission to also
consider that adjudication process in this case has already commenced
and therefore, the matter should be considered sub-judice before a
quasi-judicial authority.
Decision:
8. I’m afraid, the request of this appellant for fairly mundane
information has been allowed to go abegging on speciously procedural
grounds by the Appellate Authority. AA first makes a determination that
information being personal to the appellant himself was disclosable and
then proceeds to qualifying it by saying that it would be disclosed only
if it didn’t attract an exemption-Section under the RTI Act. When CPIO
refused to disclose the information even after the AA’s directive, taking
the plea of Section 8(1)(h) being attracted, Appellate Authority, rather
than deliberate on whether the information actually attracted the
above-mentioned sub-section of the RTI Act, took recourse to dismissing
the first-appeal on the grounds of it being time-barred. Litigation
before the Commission was the expected outcome of the above actions
of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority.
9. In my view, the request for information of this appellant needs to
be squarely addressed. I’m not persuaded by the submissions of the
respondents that this information should not be disclosed to the
appellant under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act or on the plea that
adjudication process before a quasi-judicial authority in the matter has
already commenced. What appellant has asked for is routine internal
correspondence between the offices of the public authority relating to
an event in which the appellant himself was involved along with the
public authority. There is no reason why such information should at-all
be withheld from him. If this variety of information is not disclosed in
cases such as this, it is likely to lead to comprehensive miscarriage of
justice and may impair the ability of the appellant to adequately
defend his interests in adjudications. I do not see how disclosure of this
variety of information would in any way impede any process of
investigation. Contrary to what the respondents have stated, the type
of information this appellant has requested cannot be said to belong to
the function of quasi-judicial authority or being part of an ongoing
adjudication process. Any linkage, if there is any, with an adjudication
process is far too weak and remote to merit consideration. Similar view
AT-13082009-01.doc
Page 2 of 3
was taken by the Commission in Dinesh L. Salvi Vs. DGIT (Investigation);
Appeal Nos.CIC/AT/A/2008/00240 & 241; Date of Decision: 31.07.2008.
10. In view of the above, I direct that all the requested information
be disclosed to the appellant within two weeks of the receipt of this
order.
11. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
12. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-13082009-01.doc
Page 3 of 3