CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00368
Dated, the 17th July, 2008.
Appellant : Shri Bharat K. Bussa
Respondents : Department of Revenue
This matter came up for hearing on 16.07.2008 pursuant to Commission’s
hearing notice dated 30.05.2008. Appellant was absent, while the respondents
were represented by Limatula Yaden, Deputy Secretary (TRU) and
Shri S.Bajaj, Under Secretary (Training).
2. Through his RTI-application dated 07.11.2007, appellant had made a long
statement about what, according to him, was distorting the budgetary mandate of
the Parliament in regard to classifying alcoholic beverages for tariff purposes.
According to appellant, there was excessive transgression of jurisdiction under
subordinate legislation by the public authority, which, according to him, was
contrary to the approval given by the parliament to the budget for the year
1992-1993.
3. During the hearing, respondents submitted that the purpose for which the
appellant had made this RTI-application and the precise information which he
wished to have was not very clear from his application. They had to guess what
actually he wanted through these queries. Their understanding was that he
wanted ‘explanations’ to be furnished on behalf of the employees of the public
authority who made certain decisions in regard to the issue of the notification
about tariff rates on certain items, the basis of the approval received from the
Parliament. This, according to the respondents, could not be made available to
the appellant as it did not qualify to be ‘information’ under Section 2(f) of the
RTI Act.
4. Some of the problems which had arisen about establishing the precise
information appellant wished to have, is on account of the lengthy note which he
had submitted without clearly specifying the information. If it is an identifiable
information, the appellant is, no doubt, entitled to receive it, but if it is to be an
explanation from the officers of the public authority it clearly lies beyond the
scope of the RTI Act.
5. However, considering some crucial points which the appellant had raised
in his RTI-application, it is important that he be given another chance to clearly
specify the information he wished to have within the parameters of the RTI Act.
Page 1 of 2
This is best done at the level of the Appellate Authority, who being an officer of
the public authority, is conversant with the nuances of budget-making and the
resultant notification issued by the Department.
6. Appeal is accordingly remitted back to the Appellate Authority,
Shri Vivek Johri, Joint Secretary (TRU) with a direction that he shall give a
hearing to the appellant not later than four weeks from the date of the receipt of
this order and, having recorded as per the averment of the appellant, the precise
information which the appellant wishes to have, pass a suitable order about its
disclosure under the RTI Act.
7. Appeal is disposed of with these directions.
8. 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