PIO asked the appellant to make payment of Rs. 10/- for the required information; later transferred the RTI application to the concerned PIO and subsequently denied the required information u/s 8(1)(h) - CIC: denial justified in the eyes of Law
1. Vide RTI application dated 24.05.2012, 06.06.2012 & 07.08.2012 the Appellant sought information on the issues pertaining to result/status of Raid.
2. CPIO, vide its response dated 20.07.2012, 22.08.2012, 28.09.2012 denied to provide the information to the appellant u/s 8(1) (h) of RTI Act.
3. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 01.11.2012 as the desired information was not provided
4. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide its order dated 18.12.2012, upheld the decision of CPIO.
5. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 18.01.2013, are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal.
Appellant opted to be absent despite of our due notice to him. Respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 24.05.2012, 06.06.2012 & 07.08.2012, sought information from the respondents on 1, 1 & 5 issues, respectively, as contained therein. Respondents vide their response dated 01.06.2012, 20.07.2012, 22.08.2012, 28.09.2012, allegedly provided the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 01.11.2012 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 18.12.2012, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his first response dated 01.06.2012, asked the appellant to make payment of Rs. 10/- for the required information. CPIO vide his subsequent response dated 20.07.2012, transferred the RTI application to the concerned CPIO. Further, CPIO vide another responses dated 22.08.2012 & 28.09.2012, denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act 2005. Further, learned FAA, vide his order dated 18.12.2012, disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPIO.
3. The Commission heard the submissions made by respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; especifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 24.05.2012, 06.06.2012 & 07.08.2012 respondent’s response dated 01.06.2012, 20.07.2012, 22.08.2012 & 28.09.2012, FAA’s order dated 18.12.2012 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
4. The Commission is of the considered view that the plea taken by CPIO under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 appears to be justified in the eyes of Law. As such, there is no legal flaw either in CPIO’s responses or FAA’s order. Therefore, the CPIO’s response dated 22.08.2012 & 28.09.2012 and FAA’s order dated 18.12.2012 are hereby upheld being legally tenable. In view of this, the appellant’s second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
(M.A. Khan Yusufi)
Citation: Shri Manohar Badrinarayan Maheshwari v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax in File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000725/KY