First Appeal may be filed not only information seeker but also by a Public Authority u/s 19(1) -CIC: it may legally inferred that Second Appeal may also be filed before CIC u/s 19(3) not only by the information seeker but even by Public Authority

FACTS:

1. Vide RTI application dated 02.08.2012, Sh. Sudhir Shringarpure, Appellant sought information on the 5 issues.

2. CPIO, vide its response dated 21.08.2012 allegedly not provided the information to the Sh. Sudhir

Shringarpure, appellant.

3. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 30.08.2012 (as stated in the FAO) as the desired information was not provided. Copy of the appeal is not on record.

4. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide its order dated 01.10.2012, disposed of the FA.

5. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 27.12.2012, are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal.

6. HEARING

Sh. Pawan Khetan, CPIO, appeared on behalf of Sh. A K Goel, then CPIO, before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.

DECISION

At the outset, it is stated here that the captioned Second Appeal has been filed by Sh. A K Goel, then CPIO, under section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI 2005 before this Hon. Commission against the impugned order dated 01.10.2012 passed by Sh. R P Singh, then Director (Customs) cum First Appellate Authority in the FA filed by Sh. Sudhir Shringarpure, Appellant.

2. It is would be here that Sh. A K Goel, then CPIO, vide his order dated 21.08.2012, provided the required information against issue no. (i) & (ii) of the RTI application. However, Sh. Goel, denied the desired information to the appellant against issues no. (iii) to (v) by taking plea that these issues fall outside the four corners of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act 2005. Further, on the FA, learned FAA, vide his order dated 01.10.2012, disagreed with the CPIO’ reply against issues no. (iii) to (v) of the RTI application and directed then CPIO to provide the information even against issues no. (iii) to (v). Hence, a second appeal.

3. According to Section 19(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act 2005, any person aggrieved with the order of Public Authority/ CPIO, is legally entitled to file the FA before the learned FAA within 30 days. Further, being aggrieved by the order passed by Learned FAA, a Second Appeal is to be filed under section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act 2005, within 90 days, before this Hon. Commission.

4. It is to be seen here that for the purpose of filing FA against the CPIO’s order, under section 19(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act 2005, a phrase i.e. “any person” has been used by Hon. Indian legislatures to definitely connotes a person seeking information only and not otherwise. However, no such expression has been used by Hon. Indian legislatures under the Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 while filing of the Second Appeal before this Commission.

5. Furthermore, as per the section 19(2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order. of the RTI Act 2005, if the required information pertains to the third party, the third party may also file an appeal (first) under section 19(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act 2005, within 30 days from date of receipt of CPIO’s order made under section 11 of the RTI Act. Further, as per Section 2(n) “third party” means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. of the RTI Act 2005, third party means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and also includes a Public Authority. In other words, First Appeal may also be filed before FAA, not only the person who is seeking the information but also the Public Authority.

6. By virtue of legal position as explained in preceding Para no. 3, 4 & 5 above, it is abundantly clear that Second Appeal which is filed under section 19 (3) of the RTI Act 2005, against the order of FAA passed under Section 19(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act 2005, before the Commission. It is also equally clear that FA may be filed not only information seeker but also by a Public Authority as highlighted in preceding Para 4 above. Thus, in other words, we may legally inferred that Second Appeal may also be filed before this Commission not only by the information seeker but even by Public Authority. This views also get supports from Hon. CIC’s larger Bench Decision dated 02.08.2007 dealt in file no. CIC/AT/A/2006/00074 & CIC/WB/A/07/00679.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that in the captioned case, Sh. Sudhir Shringarpure, appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 02.08.2012, sought information from the respondents on five issues as contained therein. Sh. A. K. Goel, then CPIO, vide his response dated 21.08.2012, allegedly provided the required information to the appellant on issue no. (i) and against issue no. (ii), the appellant’s RTI application was transferred to the concerned CPIO for necessary information. Further, against issues no. (iii) to (v), information was denied by the CPIO by taking a plea that these issues do not fall within the ambit of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act 2005.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by Sh. Sudhir Shringarpure, appellant, on 30.08.2012, before Sh. R. P. Singh, then Director (Customs) cum FAA, who vide his order dated 01.10.2012, upheld the CPIO’s reply against issues no. (i) & (ii). However, disagreed with the CPIO’s reply against issues no. (iii) to (v) of RTI application dated 02.08.2012 and directed the CPIO to provide the same to the appellant.

9. The Commission heard the submissions made by Sh. Pawan Khetan, on behalf of Sh. A K Goel, appellant, then CPIO, at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; especifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 02.08.2012, respondent’s response dated 21.08.2012 FAA’s order dated 01.10.2012 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.

10. The Commission is of the considered view that issues no. (iii) to (v) of the RTI Application dated 02.08.2012, are not the issue in real terms of the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, but these issues may be called something else and based on “if and buts”. Thus, the Commission feels that these issues dehors section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act 2005. That being the position, the Public Authority/ CPIO is not under legal obligation to respond such type of issues.

11. In view of the position above, it may be legally inferred that CPIO’s response dated 21.08.2012, is legally tenable and deserves to be upheld. Therefore, it is upheld. Consequently, the order dated 01.10.2012, passed by Sh. R P Singh, then Learned FAA, passed in the FA, is partly quashed and set aside as far as it relates to issues no. (iii) to (v) of the RTI Application dated 02.08.2012. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

 (M.A. Khan Yusufi)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri A K Goel v. Dept. of Revenue CBEC in File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000380/KY