CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00699
Dated, the 27th February, 2009.
Appellant : Shri S.P. Goyal
Respondents : Customs Department (Delhi Zone)
This second-appeal was heard through videoconferencing on 19.01.2009.
Appellant was present at NIC Studio at Mumbai, whereas the respondents were
present at NIC facility at CIC Office at New Delhi, from where the Commission
conducted the hearing.
2. The RTI-application of the appellant dated 07.11.2007 comprised five
main queries and 11 sub-queries related to the main query item no.5. These were
replied to by the CPIO through two communications; one dated 24.12.2007 and
the other dated 26.11.2008 ⎯ the latter being specific to the query number 1(C)
as contained in the appellant’s RTI-application.
3. Appellate Authority upheld the decisions of the CPIO except in relation to
item 1(C), for which on his direction CPIO furnished the above-mentioned
second reply to the appellant.
4. A perusal of the queries of the appellant shows that all the information
which he has sought relates to the quasi-judicial adjudication proceeding before
the Chief Commissioner of Customs (DZ). The replies which have been
furnished to him are entirely appropriate to the queries which he had raised.
Appellant has stated that the information given to him was “incorrect /
misleading”. He has also accused the respondents of refusing to reply to several
of his queries.
5. In his appeal-petition, appellant has admitted that the queries related to a
matter which was being “re-adjudicated”. He has, however, not stated anything
either in his written submission or during the oral submission as to how the
replies given by the respondents was incorrect or misleading, or amounted to
refusal to reply. In the absence of any such specific submission, it is not possible
for this Commission to arrive at a conclusion contrary to what the respondents
have.
6. It, however, needs to be mentioned that the nature of the queries of the
appellant in this RTI-application (copy of the RTI-application is enclosed to this
AT-27022009-10.doc
Page 1 of 2
order) is such that it amounts to engaging the respondents in a dialogue about the
adjudicating authority’s quasi-judicial actions. RTI Act provides no scope for
such explorations.
7. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
8. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-27022009-10.doc
Page 2 of 2