dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
*****
F. No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01325
Dated: 15th July, 2008
Appellant : Shri S.P. Goyal
Respondents : Income Tax, Mumbai
This second-appeal filed by Shri S.P. Goyal, Mumbai (Appellant) came
up for hearing on 4.6.2008. Hearing was held through Video Conferencing.
Appellant and respondents were present at NIC Studio, Mumbai.
2. Appellant through his RTI request dated 16.7.2007 had asked for
certified copies of the entire file of M/s. Monika India A.Y. 1999-2000. He
had examined the file on 19.5.2005 and claims that he had found it
incomplete and without page numbering.
3. CPIO through communication dated 6.8.2007 declined to disclose the
information on the ground that Shri S. P. Goyal vide his earlier RTI request
dated 29.3.2007 had asked for inspection of file relating to appeal No.
CIT(A)C.VII/IT-15/2002-03 of M/s. Monika India A.Y. 1999-2000 and the
matter was pending before the Central Information Commission in Case No.
CIC/AT/A/2007/00620. Further, the appellant had already inspected the
entire file on 19.5.2005 and had taken photocopies.
4. The first appeal dt. 10.8.2007 was disposed of by AA vide his order
dated 12.9.2007. AA stated that the Central Information Commission vide
its order dt. 22.8.2007 in case no. CIC/AT/A/2007/00620 had allowed the
appellant to inspect the documents and take copies including certified
copies of documents on payment of fee and “further fee” under section of
7(3) of RTI Act. He therefore directed the CPIO to follow the directions of
Central Information Commission.
-: 2 :-
5. Appellant in this second appeal dated 25.10.2007 stated that till date
no information was provided by the respondents and the AA had not given
him an opportunity of being heard before disposing of his appeal.
6. During the hearing it was clarified by the respondents that the
appellant was given inspection of requisite document/file twice – one on
19.5.2005 i.e. prior to RTI Act and 2nd on 17.9.2007 after the decision of the
CIC – and was also given copies as required by him.
Decision:
7. The appellant has already inspected the document/file twice and
taken copies of the required documents. Thus, there is nothing more to
disclose. Multiple inspections of documents/files, which have already been
inspected by the appellant, cannot be permitted. This is an example of the
vexatious and frivolous petitions this appellant has been filing under RTI
Act. He cannot be allowed to abuse the provisions of the Act. Appeal
rejected.
8. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by
Sd/-
(D.C. Singh)
Assistant Registrar