TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal against the Delhi High Court decision in Writ Petition(C) No. 6633 of 2003 decided on 13-9-2006 in the case of Pushpa Lakhumal Tulani v. Additional Commissioner of Customs; (b) Copies of all note sheets of the file for the information as referred to (a) above; (c) Copy of Show Cause-Notice dated 12-12-2002 and Order-in-Original dated 14-12-2003; (d) Inspection of records, documents, note sheets and files relating to prosecution of Ms. Pushpa Lakhumal Tulani and copies of note sheets. 2.2 The CPIO rejected the said application of the appellant vide order No. 275/57/2005-CX-8A(Pt.), dated 26-5-2009 claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and also on the ground that there is no express provisions under the Customs and Excise Law and in the RTI Act that copies of such Show Cause Notices, Orders, note sheets pertaining to third parties may be provided to any other person/persons not related to it and that the appellant owns a business house and he is collecting information merely for promoting his own business for making profit and no public interest is involved. 3. The appellant being aggrieved with the order dt. 26-5-2009 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings. That the quasi-judicial orders passed by the Customs Officers are subject to the further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and the Hon ble Supreme Court. Therefore, they are subject to judicial review under the Customs laws and constitutional provisions and, therefore, they cannot be treated as third party documents or privileged documents. 3.8 The reliance of the CPIO on the decision No. 11/85/2006/CIC, dated 10-4-2009 of the CIC is misconceived and has no applicability of present case as the appellant is not running any website or in any way concerned in accepting any advertisement. 3.9 That as per Section 74(1)(ii) of the Evidence Act, the documents confirming the records of the acts of official body or Tribunal, are treated as public documents and a public document cannot be called a third party document. Allahabad High Court in the case of Alla Buksh v. Ratan - AIR 1959 (All) 829, held, that an assessment order passed by Sales Tax Officer to be a public document. The Mysore High Court in the case of Mahboob Mills Co. Ltd. v Vittal - AIR 1959 Mys. 180 held that the records of the Labour Tribunal as public documents; Patna High Court in the case of Hir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Officers in exercise of statutory power. The impugned order while claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 have given no reason what so ever. An order without reason is prima facie not sustainable. The information relating to filing of appeals or not to file appeals/petition against decision of the Court or Tribunal, are related to protection of public revenue and are public documents and providing access to the same serves larger interest of safeguarding public revenue. There is no invasion of privacy of anybody as provided in Section 8(1)(j) as the case has already been heard and decided in open court by the Delhi High Court. 3.14 That the CPIO has erred in holding that the information in question cannot be provided and is exempted under Section 8(1) as there is no express provision in the Customs and Excise Law and in the RTI Act that the copies of the Show Cause Notice orders, note-sheets pertaining to third parties may be provided to any other person/persons not related to it. The provisions of the RTI Act, having overriding effect on all other statutes by virtue of Section 22 of the RTI Act. 3.15 CPIO cannot ask or go into the reasons for seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 17-7-2009, an intimation was sent to the appellant indicating the reasons for not being able to take up the appeal within the limitation prescribed in sub-section 6 of 19 of the Act. Correspondences have been made with the Ministry of Law and Justice for return of the said file. However, seeing the delay on this account with no response coming from the said Ministry, the date of personal hearing was fixed on 6-8-2009. The appellant was informed of the reasons of delay and also that the file is still with the Ministry of Law and Justice. 5.3 I now take up the appeal for decision. The information which was sought by Shri R.K. Jain in his application dated 25-4-2009 pertain to a case of Ms. Pushpa Lakhumal Tulani v. Additional Commissioner of Customs which was decided by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi for Writ Petition No. 6633 of 2003 on 13-9-2006. The applicant had sought inspection of all records, documents, correspondence, Note Sheets and file in connection with the decision taken for filing/not filing petition/appeal against the said Order of the High Court of Delhi. A copy of Show Cause Notice dated 12-12-2002 and Order-in-Original dated 14-12-2003 and also inspectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst Ms. Pushpa Lakhumal Tulani and a Show Cause Notice was issued to her on 12-12-2002 under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said order gives certain personal details of Ms. Tulani that she is a person of Indian origin and is an Indonesian National, settled in England along with her husband and daughter, that she came to India from London to attend a wedding and was intercepted at the International Airport while going through Green Channel by the officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who upon examination of the handbag carried by her found 28 packets containing certain jewellery items worth Rs. 1.27 crores. A Show Cause Notice was issued to her on 12-12-2002 under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 alleging that she was trying to smuggle jewellery worth Rs. 1.27 crores. The said notice was decided by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. Ms. Tulani filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court against the said order and after examining the allegations raised in the Show Cause Notice, the details of the order and the reply of Ms. Tulani, the Court set aside the order stating that Ms. Tulani has not violated any of the provisions of the Baggage Rules, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relate to or has been supplied by the third party. The mechanism as provided in the statute relating to supply of third party information has not been followed in this case. Accordingly I set aside the findings of the CPIO wherein it was held that as the information sought falls in Section 2(n) of the Act and, therefore, is exempted under Section 8(1) of the Act. 5.8 Further as regards the observations made by the CPIO in her order that though the appellant has not declared in his application that he owns a publishing house, it is a fact that he is running a publishing house and it appear rhat he intends to use the RTI Act for collecting information merely for the promotion of his own business, I find that sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the RTI Act stipulates that the applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him. Further no reasoning or grounds have been given for making such observations or assuming or presuming that the applicant intends to use the Act for collecting information for promoting his own business activities or fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
