CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00554
Dated, the 24th October, 2008.
Appellant : Shri J.V. Rao
Respondents : Central Excise Department
This second-appeal was heard on 16.10.2008. The appellant is the
third-party. The original RTI-applicant, Shri Rajeshkumar Tejsinh Rao had
applied for the following information through an RTI-petition dated 20.08.2007:-
“(1) Status of Rao Tejsinh Jawansinh in a firm J V Rao Chhikniwala
and his share in the firm.
(2) There are how many partners in the firm and their share in a firm.
(3) After death of Rao Tejsinh Jawansinh, whether status / nature of
the firm has been changed? If yes, what is the present status /
nature
(4) If after the death of one of the partner namely Rao Tejsinh
Jawansinh, if the partnership firm is continued in the same name,
who are present partners and their share in the partnership firm
(5) Whether any share is reserved for the heirs of the partners
according to old partnership deed or any new partnership deed is
filed / registered ?
(6) Complaint for evasion of excise duty was filed against the J.V.Rao
Chhikniwala firm somewhere in April 2005. The applicant wants
the details of the complaint and status thereof as to whether the
said complaint is still pending or if not, what is the present status?
(7) Copy of Returns filed for the month of November 2006, December
2006 and January to July 2007
(8) Copy of partnership deed old as well as new.”
2. CPIO, through his order dated 01.10.2007, decided to disclose the
requested information to the original RTI-applicant over the objection of the
third-party, who is the appellant before the Commission. The third-party had
claimed that the information requested by the RTI-applicant was their personal
information. They also disputed CPIO’s contention that the original
RTI-applicant being the progeny of one of the partners of the Firm to which the
present appellants belong was entitled to receive the details as listed out in his
RTI-application. The Appellate Authority, through his decision dated 22.11.2007
upheld CPIO’s decision. Appellant has now contested that decision in
Page 1 of 2
second-appeal questioning the grounds on which the respondents had decided to
disclose information to the original RTI-applicant. They as third-parties were not
heard either by the CPIO or the Appellate Authority, wherein they could have
put-forth the grounds on which the information ought not to have been disclosed.
They have also contradicted the respondents’ point that the original RTI-
petitioner as the legal heir was entitled to receive the requested information about
his father’s shareholding in the Firm.
3. During the hearing, the point which was specially debated was whether
the information as requested by the original applicant is already in public domain
through the aegis of the Registrar of Company Affairs. It would be appropriate
for the Appellate Authority to consult the Registrar of the Company Affairs
regarding the nature of the information ⎯ whether it is exclusive to the
third-party or it is already in public domain and as such accessible through some
alternative methods already stipulated by other public authorities such as the
Registrar. Besides, there is also the question of the locus-standi of the present
RTI-petitioner ⎯ about his being the only and true heir to his father. It is also
necessary that given the complexity of the case the third-parties are given a
proper hearing by the Appellate Authority.
4. Since these functions are best discharged closest to the point where the
information is held, it is directed that matter be remitted back to the Appellate
Authority, Shri Vijai Lakshmi Sharma, Chief Commissioner, Central Excise,
Ahmedabad Zone, with a direction that he shall dispose of this matter after
de-novo consideration within four weeks of the receipt of this order. He may
also consider consulting the Registrar of Company Affairs before passing the
final decision. The Appellate Authority is also directed to give a hearing to the
third-party (the present appellants) before arriving at his final decision.
5. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
6. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2