9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present appeal dated 8-2-2012 before the Commission against the respondent Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi for providing incomplete and incorrect information in reply to his RTI - application dated 22-8-2011. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri S. Bhowmik, Under Secretary and Shri Yogesh Sharma, Section Officer. 2. The appellant has through his RTI application dated 22-8-2011 sought information on the following seven queries : "(A) Please provide the information as to the date when the reports of CESTAT Inquiry Committee was received in O/O Revenue Secretary or Department of Revenue and date of forwarding letter and name and de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal on 21-11-2011 before the FAA. Shri S.K. Tyagi, Director (Hqrs)/FAA vide his Order No. R.12011/37/2011-Ad.IC dated 31-1-2012 has informed the appellant as follows : "The CPIO vide his letter dated 16-9-2011 provided the part information to the appellant and regarding information sought on Point No. (B), (D) and (G) relating to 3rd party, a copy of the notice dated 16-9-2011 issued to the 3rd party was also provided to the appellant. The appellant vide his letter dated 26-9-2011, informed the CPIO about the non-receipt of the enclosures, which was sent again by the CPIO vide letter dated 3-10-2011. The CPIO received the reply of the 3rd party vide their letter dated 29-9-2011 and after examination of which, the CPIO decided not to disclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with his letter dated 16-9-2011 and the reply of the third party with his letter dated 4-10-2011 with a mala fide intent to delay and obstruct the information. The FAA has failed to appreciate that the CPIO in clause (F) of his order dated 16-9-2011 in relation to the request for supplying a copy of the Final Report of the Inquiry Committee headed by Dr. C. Satapathy stated that no such report has been received in the Department of Revenue, whereas the Registrar, CESTAT by his letter dated 18-8-2011 has already forwarded a copy of the said Final Report to D.O.R. Therefore, the CPIO has provided false and incorrect information deliberately to withhold the information. The FAA has erred in not appreciating that Shri Victor James, by 3rd noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Revenue The CPIO with a view to cover up his lapses and block action on the complaints against Mr. R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Former President of CESTAT, who was facing number of allegations of judicial malfunctioning and financial irregularities in connivance with CESTAT's officials, has deliberately and malafidely denied information on the pretext that there is a third party objection. He therefore prays that the order of the FAA be set aside and the CPIO be directed to provide complete information to him. He also prays for enquiry to be instituted u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act and penalty imposed on the CPIO for knowingly and malafidely not providing the correct and complete information as sought by the appellant for not providing copy of thir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show-cause notice u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act would be issued to the Shri Victor James, the then CPIO/Under Secretary asking him to show-cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for providing misleading information to the appellant. The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission. 3. As per the order dated 26-4-2013, a separate show cause notice was issued to Shri Victor James, the then CPIO, in File No. CIC/SS/C/2013/000177 dated 2-5-2013. 4. Shri Victor James replied to the show cause vide his letter dated 5-6-2013 which is taken on record. 5. During the hearing, the appellant submits that the response given by the CPIO in response to paras (A) and (F) are contradictory inasmuch as in response to Para (A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusive of all the paras leaves no matter of doubt that the appellant was seeking information about only one enquiry report under reference. Shri Victor James' plea that contradictory information happened to be supplied in response to paras (A) and (F) of the RTI application due to possibility of the appellant seeking information on two distinct enquires appears to be an after thought and can not be accepted. It also appears to me that non-supply of copy of the enquiry report under reference has caused genuine detriment to the appellant inasmuch as he cannot tell the Bar that he has been exonerated of the allegations made against him by the Bangalore Bar Association. I am, therefore, not satisfied with the explanation given by the CPIO. Even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
