CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000859 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000860
F.No.CIC/AT/C/2010/000123 F.No.CIC/AT/C/2010/000124
Total : 2 Appeals & 2 Complaints
Dated, the 21 May, 2010.
st
Appellant : Shri P.K. Agrawal
Respondent : Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Raipur
s
Matter came up for hearing on 04.05.2010 through
videoconference (VC) in the presence of both parties. Appellant was
present through his authorized rep. Shri Giriraj Agrawal at NIC VC facility
at Jabalpur. However, the VC Studio at Jabalpur could not be connected
with the CIC, New Delhi due to some technical problems at Jabalpur.
Therefore, the appellant’s rep. was heard through audioconferencing.
Respondents ― represented by the CPIO, Shri B.N.Dhanke and the
Appellate Authority, Shri Raj Kumar, Additional Commissioner ― made
their submissions from NIC VC facility at Raipur.
Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000859:
2. The matter in this secondappeal is related to appellant’s
RTIapplication dated 07.08.2009, which was earlier heard in second
appeal on 17.02.2010 when certain directions were issued to the
respondents to file their replies.
3. On perusal of the replies and after hearing both the parties, it is
observed that appellant’s main point is that the information furnished to
him related only to be part of the Raipur Commissionerate and not for all
CIC_AT_A_2009_859.doc
Page 1 of 3
its Divisions. Respondents clarified that out of the 4 Division (viz. Raipur,
BhilaiI, BhilaiII and Bilaspur), information pertaining to last Division, viz.
Bilaspur only, was provided to appellant separately on 12.10.2009.
4. It is directed that information relating to the Bilaspur division may
be provided to the appellant once again within one week of the receipt of
this order.
5. All other points in appellant’s RTIapplication have been covered by
the respondents’ replies given over a period of time.
6. In view of the above, the purpose of disclosure of information
requested through appellant’s RTIapplication has been satisfied.
7. Appeal closed.
Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000860:
8. Appellant’s main complaint in this appeal is that, as requested
through his RTIapplication dated 28.07.2009, respondents never
provided to him any time for inspection of the requested records.
9. CPIO stated that they have had no objection to allowing the
appellant to inspect the records held by them in relation to his
RTIqueries.
10. Now that the respondents are willing to provide inspection of the
records to the appellant, it is directed that CPIO shall issue to the
appellant a notice informing him of the date, the time and the place for the
inspection of records. This will be done within two weeks of the receipt of
this order. On inspection, appellant shall be allowed to take copies of the
inspected records on payment of such fees as may be admissible.
CIC_AT_A_2009_859.doc
Page 2 of 3
11. Appeal accordingly disposed of.
Complaint Nos.CIC/AT/C/2010/000123 & 124:
12. It was informed by the CPIO, Shri B.N. Dhanke that Md.Israil, who
was the then CPIO, to whom CIC notice dated 19.03.2010 for penalty
was issued on 19.03.2010 had passed away on 02.11.2009.
13. As the noticee is no more, action in this proceeding abates.
Dropped.
14. After perusing the replies of the head of the public authority, viz.
Shri Anil Kumar, Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax,
Raipur, dated 17.03.2010 and the Appellate Authority, Shri Raj Kumar,
Additional Commissioner, dated 18.03.2010 in response to Commission’s
notice under Section 19(8)(b) dated 02.03.2010, it is decided that the
matter need not be progressed further.
15. Complaints disposed of with these directions.
16. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
CIC_AT_A_2009_859.doc
Page 3 of 3