CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00368
Dated, the 11th August, 2009.
Appellant : Smt.Jyotsna Agarwal
Respondents : Central Excise Department
This matter came up for hearing on 25.06.2009 pursuant to
Commission’s notice dated 19.05.2009. Appellant was absent when
called, while the respondents were represented by Shri Lal Singh Bist,
Deputy Commissioner & CPIO.
2. Appellant had requested for five items of information as
contained in her RTI-application dated 05.09.2008 (copy attached to
this order as Annexe). She received a reply from CPIO on 18.09.2008
declining to disclose the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI
Act.
3. Appellate Authority, in his order dated 12.12.2008, while
upholding the decision of the CPIO, stated that as regards item at
Sl.No.5 in appellant’s RTI-application, review proceedings under Section
35E of Central Excise Act in the 2 cases mentioned by the appellant,
had been completed and appeals were filed before the Commissioner
(Appeal) in both cases. This was by way of information regarding query
at Sl.No.5.
4. During the hearing, respondents represented by CPIO submitted
that the attempt of the appellant by seeking this information was
clearly to impede an ongoing process of investigation into fraud
allegedly committed by her. What appellant seems to be driving at is to
force respondents to deliver to her a part of all information required
and involved in the ongoing investigation in order to use it selectively to
obstruct the current process of investigation. It was CPIO’s submission
that disclosing information as requested by the appellant would enable
her to use it colourably in obtaining “stay orders” from courts against
the current investigation. Department may, and in all probability will,
convince the court to vacate the stay but the net-impact would be to
derail and delay the process of investigation, thereby impeding it.
Respondents, therefore, strongly urged against disclosure of the
requested information.
AT-11082009-05.doc
Page 1 of 2
5. Appellant has submitted her written-arguments as part of the
second-appeal petition, in which she has reiterated her claim to access
the information as requested in her RTI-application. It is her argument
that the information she has requested is in respect of events which
have already taken place and the quasi-judicial proceeding to which the
requested documents pertained were prima-facie in the public domain
already. She stated that it was not true that any investigation was
pending in this matter, i.e. about the rebate claims.
6. Considering the fact that this information is about a settled
rebate claim by the appellant, I see no reason why it should be withheld
from disclosure. I do not believe that divulging the information can in
anyway impede any ongoing investigation even if such information were
to be included in some way in the current investigative process.
7. In view of the above, I am in agreement with the appellant that
disclosure of the requested information would not impede the
investigation in the matter. It is, therefore, directed that the CPIO
shall disclose the requested information to appellant within 2 weeks of
the receipt of this order.
8. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
9. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-11082009-05.doc
Page 2 of 2