CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000289
Dated, the 22nd July, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Naudi Jauhri
Respondents : Central Board of Excise and Customs
This matter was heard through videoconferencing on 06.07.2009
pursuant to Commission’s notice dated 04.06.2009. Appellant ⎯ who
was asked to be present at NIC Studio, Nasik for the hearing ⎯ was
absent when the hearing commenced. Respondents, represented by
Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, Director (CX 1&4) and Ms.Ashima Bansal, Under
Secretary (CX 1&4), were present at the Commission’s New Delhi, from
where the videoconference-hearing was conducted by the Commission.
2. It is seen that the RTI-application dated 18.12.2008, which is the
subject-matter of this appeal, demanded to know from the respondents
reasons for keeping in abeyance a reward which appellant considered
was his due. He also wanted to know the action proposed to be taken
in the matter of providing him “informant reward” and the reasons why
no action was taken till-date as well as who was responsible for the
order of his reward being kept in abeyance for such a long time.
3. CPIO, through his communication dated 14.01.2009 and the
Appellate Authority, through his order dated 25.02.2009, informed
appellant that, on examination of all matters it was found that he was
not eligible to receive the reward. It was the contention of the
respondents, during the hearing, that appellant could not call upon the
respondents to explain to him why he was not found eligible for the
reward.
4. In his second-appeal petition before the Commission, appellant
has stated why he considered that the respondents were wrong in
considering him ineligible for the reward.
5. It is not possible to allow the appellant to engage the respondents
in a dialogue about whether he merited the reward or he did not. The
information that the reward was not given to him on grounds of
eligibility has already been provided to him. Appellant could not
AT-22072009-17.doc
Page 1 of 2
demand from the respondents, within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the
RTI Act, the reason why he was found to be ineligible.
6. As there is no infirmity in the orders of the Appellate Authority
dated 25.02.2009, I uphold the same.
7. Appeal is directed to be closed.
8. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-22072009-17.doc
Page 2 of 2