CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000856
Dated, the 24th February, 2010.
Complainant : Shri V.M. Doiphode
Respondents : Customs (General), Mumbai
This is a complaint filed by Shri V.M. Doiphode (complainant)
against the then Appellate Authority (AA), Shri Rakesh Goyal, Additional
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai for what was described as negligence
on his (AA’s) part in failing to take cognizance of, in his first appellate
order, another later order of the CPIO.
2. Matter was heard through videoconferencing (VC) on 17.02.2010
in the presence of both parties. Complainant was present through his
Counsel, Ms.Kiran Doiphode at NIC VC facility at Mumbai, so was the
then Appellate Authority (AA), Shri Rakesh Goyal. Commission
conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
3. According to the complainant, his RTI-application dated
09.05.2009 filed before the CPIO & Assistant Commissioner of Customs,
RTI Cell (Export), Mumbai ⎯ which was transferred to the Assistant
Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai ⎯ was initially rejected
through the latter’s order dated 17.06.2009. Complainant, thereafter,
filed the first-appeal on 17.07.2009 before the Appellate Authority,
Shri Rakesh Goyal, Additional Commissioner of Customs (General), who
made his decision on 10.09.2009 upholding the order of the CPIO.
4. In the period between the deemed-CPIO, Shri M.J. Motiramani,
Assistant Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai’s first order
dated 17.06.2009 and the Appellate Authority’s decision dated
10.09.2009, the deemed-CPIO passed another order dated 09.09.2009,
which effectively reversed his earlier denial of the information to the
complainant through communication dated 17.06.2009. The subsequent
order dated 09.09.2009 provided all the requested information to the
complainant.
5. Complainant’s plea is that Appellate Authority erred in not taking
cognizance of the deemed-CPIO’s second order dated 09.09.2009 while
making his (AA’s) decision dated 10.09.2009. It is the complainant’s
AT-24022010-01.doc
Page 1 of 3
point that a copy of the deemed-CPIO’s reply dated 09.09.2009 was also
marked to the Personal Assistant of the Appellate Authority and was
received by him on 11.09.2009. It is his argument that if the Appellate
Authority had taken due cognizance of the CPIO’s reply dated
09.09.2009 disclosing the information, he would not have passed the
order dated 10.09.2009 upholding CPIO’s earlier order dated
17.06.2009, through which the information was denied to the
complainant.
6. I am clearly mystified by this plea of the complainant, which has
been so vigourously argued on his behalf by his Counsel. To a query
from the Commission, complainant’s Counsel stated that the hearing
before the Appellate Authority in respect of complainant’s first-appeal
against CPIO’s original order dated 17.06.2009 took place on
24.08.2009. This was the final hearing. The order which Appellate
Authority passed in this matter was dated 10.09.2009. Complainant’s
expectation that Appellate Authority should have maintained high
vigilance and ought to have factored into his order the second
communication dated 09.09.2009 of the deemed-CPIO was clearly
misplaced. The Appellate Authority is a statutory authority under the
RTI Act, and once a hearing before such an authority is over and
complete and order is reserved, the only reason why the proceedings
could be reopened would be on account of a motion by either of the
two parties before the Appellate Authority. In this case, there was no
such motion either from the complainant side or from the side of the
CPIO. For the complainant to believe that CPIO transmitting a copy of
his second order to the Appellate Authority’s P.A. was an equivalent of
a proper proceeding or motion before the Appellate Authority is
misconceived. If the CPIO wanted that the Appellate Authority should
be informed about new developments in the proceeding before him, he
ought to have made a proper motion before the Appellate Authority and
requested reconsideration. Nothing of that sort seems to have been
made in this case. Complainant also, on his part, could not approach
the Appellate Authority because he received ⎯ according to his
Counsel’s version ⎯ the order of the CPIO dated 09.09.2009
considerably after the Appellate Authority passed his order.
7. I am, therefore, not in a position to place any fault at the
doorstep of the Appellate Authority for his failing to factor into his
order the subsequent communication of the CPIO dated 09.09.2009,
which was casually marked to the Appellate Authority’s Personal
Assistant. It is also to be noted that Appellate Authority’s order is
dated 10.09.2009, while his Personal Assistant received CPIO’s
AT-24022010-01.doc
Page 2 of 3
communication dated 09.09.2009 on 11.09.2009, i.e. one day after the
AA’s order was finalized. This excluded even a theoretical possibility of
AA taking note of the CPIO’s second communication to appellant, in
AA’s final order.
8. The complainant has already been provided all the information
through CPIO’s second communication dated 09.09.2009. This particular
communication was never ‘before’ the Appellate Authority in a proper
sense of the term. Hence his order was limited to CPIO’s original denial
of information to the complainant contained in communication dated
17.06.2009. I see nothing wrong in it. Complainant should be happy
with the information now disclosed to him and his coming in complaint
against the Appellate Authority is truly intriguing. Appellate Authority
has rightly pointed out that a complaint proceeding under Section 18 or
Section 20 of the RTI Act can be only against a CPIO and not an
Appellate Authority.
9. I, therefore, find no merit in this complaint, which is rejected.
10. Matter closed.
11. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-24022010-01.doc
Page 3 of 3