CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00402
Dated, the 30th July, 2008.
Appellant : Ms.Manju Surana
Respondents : Central Excise Department
This matter came up for hearing on 23.07.2008 pursuant to Commission’s
hearing notice dated 09.06.2008. Appellant was absent, while the respondents
were represented by Shri R.K. Singh, Commissioner.
2. Appellant through her RTI-application dated 29.10.2007 asked for three
items of information, which are attached to this order as Annexe.
3. In his communication dated 28.11.2007, the CPIO stated that information
sought through queries at Sl.Nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI-application of the appellant
could not be provided under Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
The balance information was stated to be ‘Nil’.
4. The Appellate Authority, in his order dated 17.01.2008, while noting that
due to the confusion about the address of the appellant communication of the
CPIO (dated 28.11.2007) could not reach her, directed that that communication
of the CPIO dated 28.11.2007 should be made available to the appellant once
again.
5. In her second-appeal petition, the appellant had stated that it was due to
corruption and other irregularities in the public authority that the information
requested by her has not been supplied in full either by the CPIO, or the
Appellate Authority.
6. On the basis of what the appellant has stated in her second-appeal, I am
unable to decipher as to the grounds on which he wishes to assail the orders of
the Appellate Authority and the CPIO. However, it is also noticed that the
information which the appellant has sought is regarding the hotels and marriage
pandals registered as Service Tax Payees with the public authority. He also
wishes to know the service tax paid by these entities for the year 2006-2007.
It is also her query as to how many cases were made out by the evasion
prevention teams, the revenue collected by them and the names of those who
prepare such cases.
Page 1 of 2
7. It is noted that the respondents have taken an extremely theoretical
position regarding disclosing the information related to the appellant’s
RTI-queries. What is needed is a determination about whether such information
should not be made routinely available to the public through the official website
of the public authority. If not all, at least a part, of such information may perhaps
be made known through websites. It is necessary that the public authority makes
a proper determination about the disclosure liability of the information such as
this.
8. In view of the above, it is directed that matter be remitted back to the
Appellate Authority, who will give a hearing to the appellant and consult other
senior officers of the Department in order to determine whether all, or a part of,
this information can be disclosed to the appellant. This shall be done within four
weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
9. Matter is disposed of accordingly.
10. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH )
Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar
Page 2 of 2