Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Central Information Commission In an Appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that denial of information was justified shall be on the CPIO MANU/CI/0660/2017 - (10 Oct 2017) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">R.K. Jain Vs. CPIO & Under Secretary, CX-1, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding file number relating to amendments made in the Central Excise Act by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, copies of all note sheets, inspection of all records, documents, note-sheets and files, etc. The CPIO vide its reply stated that the information sought related to Budget estimates of revenue which was published information and was also available on the website hence, details were not covered under the definition of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order concurred with the response of the CPIO. 
The CPIO claimed that, the information sought related to Finance Bill, 2016 and hence was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 without recording any reasons as to why such exemption was claimed. It is evident that, the reply was written casually without any application of mind regarding the content of the RTI application and was devoid of reasons statutorily required to be provided under Section 7(8) of the RTI Act, 2005. As per the documents available, there is no scope of ambiguity that, the information sought related to amendments carried out to the Central Excise Act by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Thus, the information sought pertained to the year 1985 and not to the year 2016. Furthermore, as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, 2005 in an Appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that denial of information was justified shall be on the CPIO who had denied the request. In the present instance, the Respondent were unable to dispose off their burden under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, 2005 to demonstrate as to how the information sought related to Finance Bill, 2016. Moreover, no opportunity of hearing during First Appeal was granted by the FAA to the Appellant, which is a violation of principles of natural justice, Audi Alteram Partem, i.e., no one should be condemned unheard. The Commission observed that, the RTI application was not even read carefully by the CPIO and the FAA and disposed off without application of mind and examining the merits of the application. The casual attitude exhibited by the Respondent Public Authority was highly condemnable and deplorable which defeats the purpose of the RTI Act, 2005. 
The Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, while explaining the term "Public Interest" held that, the expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake. 
The Commission directs the Respondent to furnish point wise information to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also instructs the Respondent to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of their duties and responsibilities and to ensure that timely response with application of mind are provided in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appeal disposed off.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Relevant : Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: <manuid>MANU/SC/1103/2012</manuid>: (2012) 13 SCC 61, State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh ([<manuid>MANU/SC/0020/1952</manuid> : AIR 1952 SC 252]</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Information, Disclosure, Direction</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>