CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000675
Dated, the 30th October, 2009.
Appellant : Shri R.S. Sawant
Respondents : Customs & Central Excise Commissionerate, Goa
This matter came up for hearing through videoconferencing (VC)
on 29.10.2009. Both parties were notified through Commission’s notice
dated 18.09.2009 to be present at NIC VC facility at Parivorim, Goa.
When the hearing commenced, appellant was absent, while the
respondents represented by the CPIOs, S/Shri Virendra Kumar, P.G. Naik
and L.M. D’Silva were present. Commission conducted the hearing from
its New Delhi office.
2. This second-appeal relates to appellant’s RTI-application dated
05.01.2009, which read as follows:-
“Please provide me under the Right to Information Act, 2005 the
details of various cases Criminal / Civil, filed by your office from
1/1/2007 till 31/12/2008 against the various Custom officials and
the exporters and importers. I would also like to know which are
the cases still under investigation.
Kindly let me have the details of action being taken and / or
proposed against the said Customs Officials, exporters and
importers and the current status of each of such cases registered
against them. I would also like to know whether any
departmental inquiries are being conducted against any of the
Custom Officials, arising during the above mentioned period and
if yes, then in what connection such inquiries are being
conducted.”
3. Through his communication dated 21.01.2009, CPIO informed that
the Vigilance Section of the Goa Commissionerate of Customs and
Central Excise had initiated no criminal or civil cases against customs
officials for the period 01.03.2007 to 31.12.2008 and hence had no
details to offer to the appellant as requested in his RTI-application.
As regards the other parts of the queries, CPIO replied that these were
AT-30102009-21.doc
Page 1 of 2
in the nature of seeking information beyond the scope of Section 2(f)
and hence were not liable to be replied to.
4. Appellate Authority, in his decision dated 23.03.2009, upheld the
findings of the CPIO. Having said this, Appellate Authority proceeded to
provide to the appellant certain information about departmental
enquiries conducted against certain officials for the period 01.03.2007
to 31.12.2008.
5. Appellant, in his second-appeal petition, has claimed that the
Appellate Authority had not examined appellant’s RTI-request in its
proper perspective and his conclusion that these lie beyond Section 2(f)
of the Act was erroneous. He also claimed that he was not given any
chance to make oral submission before the First Appellate Authority.
He has alleged that respondents were obstructing disclosure of
information.
6. I find no merit in the submissions of the appellant in view of the
reasoned decision of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority. From the
text of the queries of the appellant, it is clear that in his query at
Sl.No.3, appellant was only making a roving enquiry and not a serious
request for an information within the meaning of Section 2(f). RTI
provides no room for such fishing operations.
7. For the reasons stated in the CPIO’s reply to the appellant, I
uphold the decision of the Appellate Authority.
8. Appeal closed.
9. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-30102009-21.doc
Page 2 of 2