TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der your Commissionerate with details such as date and No. show cause notice, Name and designation of Officer before whom pending, amount involved, date of reply received. Number of hearings held/fixed and Name of the party. (C) List of cases in which adjudication order passed by officers under your Commissionerate during 1-4-2008 to 15-6-2009 including proceedings dropped with details such as name of party, amount of duty, penalty with R.F., Confirmed/involved, Order No. and date and name of Advocate/consultant. 4. The C.P.I.O. of the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy had forwarded the R.T.I. application to all the C.P.I.Os of the Central Excise Divisions under Trichy Commissionerate vide File C. No. 11/39/2030/2009 RTI, dated 23-6-2009 under Section 6(3) of the R.T.I. Act, 2005. 5. The Deputy Commissioner (CPIO), Karur vide letter C. No. RTI Act/1/2009, dated 7-7-2009 had informed the appellant that - the information sought on list of cases pending adjudication, list of cases adjudicated and 335J register consisting the particulars of the officers involved in gathering intelligence, investigation, adjudication etc. name of the party and the Advocate/Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de Clauses B and C relates to the adjudication matters and once a show cause notice is issued it cannot be said the matter is pending for investigation. (i) that as per 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 (j) the CPIO claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 is erroneous as the appellant has sought information as to copies of 335J register maintained in the offices; that taking shelter under Section 8(1)(d) without making any effort to ascertain the same as per the provisions of Section 11 ibid clearly manifests prejudice and the learned CPIO has pre-judged the issue without applying Section 11 ibid. (k) the CPIO has not ascertained whether the so called third party has in fact claimed any confidentiality in the proceedings against the information. (l) the Section 11(1) provides that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o prove that the denial of the request was justified. The CPIO made his submissions vide his letter dated 18-8-2009 highlighting the following : (i) In 335J register, the particulars of the officers who involved in the process of gathering information, investigation etc. are being recorded. The intelligence/information about tax evaders are being collected through discrete acts and means by the officers and disclosure of such information may endanger the life or physical safety of such officers and hence copies of offence register as requested was denied (Section 8(1)(g)). (ii) The process of investigation is still under way in few cases, so the disclosure of details of 335J register will alert or unnecessarily cause panic to such parties (Section 8(1)(h)). (iii) When the investigation is yet to be finalized furnishing of 335J register will cause harm to the competitive position of such assessees. (iv) the other information requested by the applicant includes information on the Advocate/Consultant who attended such offence cases which is information of a third party and the competent authority need not disclose such information unless larger public interest warr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person . 13. I had called for the 335J register maintained in this office. The 335J register, is a record of offences and penalties. Each offence should be registered in this record immediately as it is detected (or immediately as the report is received by a superior). The register is prescribed for the purpose of monitoring the progress and for taking follow up action. The 335J register contains so many details including the names of detecting officers, names of offenders, nature of offences, rules violated, value and quantity of goods and other such details regarding the outcome of the case in adjudication/appeal, realization of duty, sanction of rewards etc. The mere making entries in the said register do not necessarily prove the culpability of the offenders. After making entries further investigation would be carried out and only if it is culminates in collection of sufficient evidence to establish contravention of provisions of law by such persons against whom the offence case has been registered and to establish the culpability of offences committed by such persons fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice would be met if the CPIO is directed to examine the matter afresh in the light of spirit of Section 8(1)(h) and Section 10 of the RTI Act and consider furnishing of pages of 335J registers for which provision of Section 8(1)(h) can not be applied. Accordingly CPIO is directed to furnish information within 10 days of receipt of this decision, by applying doctrine of severability as specified in Section 10 of the RTI Act, if applicable and furnish the information which would not impede the process of investigation. 16. As regard to information sought under question (B) and (C), I find that the CPIO had denied disclosure of information about the assesses, their trade/commercial activity would harm the competitive position of such third party and information on the Advocate/Consultant would harm the competitive position of such third party and denied the information as the same is exempted under Section 8(1)(d),(g) and (h) of the RTI Act. 17. The RTI, 2005 is an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I do not find any justification on the plea of the appellant for issuing any directions to the CPIO in this regard and accordingly the request of the appellant cannot be acceded to. 19. With regard to penalty to be imposed on the CPIO under Section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI for mala fidely delaying and denying the information to Appellant, I find that Section 20 of the RTI ACT, 2005 empowers the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission to impose penalty. The Appellate Authorities are not vested with the powers of imposing penalty. Moreover, I find that the CPIO have no deliberate intention of denying the information but only failed to properly reason out for his decision to deny such information. Hence I do not find any justification in the prayer of the appellant to impose penalty on the CPIO. 20. Before concluding, I wish the CPIO to go through the judgment delivered by the Hon ble Justice Shri R. Bhat of the Delhi High Court in W.P.C.No. 3114/2007 - Shri Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner Ors., which decision is often cited by the Central Information Commission, in order to have clear vision about the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
