Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + Commission Central Excise - 2020 (6) TMI Commission This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 58 - Commission - Central ExciseAdjudication on the SCNs issued against him - issuance of OIO was not clearly and cogently explained by the Respondent - HELD THAT:- The Commission at the outset observed that the CPIO/ FAA did not provide a satisfactory response to the Appellant. The provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and various judgments on the subject matter clearly establish that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response to the information seekers. Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 also states that where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of [J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 2011 (8) TMI 1333 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] clearly stated that the PIO acts as the Pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The Commission also observed that as per the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in an Appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO. Neither the Respondent present during the hearing nor the CPIO responding to the RTI application, could justify their position as to how the disclosure of information would be in contravention to any of the provisions enshrined under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission instructs the Respondent to re-examine the matter and provide a clear, cogent and precise point wise response to the Appellant explaining the updated factual status in the matter within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order - Appeal disposed off.
|