Bimal Julka DECISION
Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
Facts:
1. The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points (A to C) regarding file number relating to amendments made in the Central Excise Act by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, copies of all note sheets of the file referred in point (A), inspection of all records, documents, note-sheets and files, etc.
2. The CPIO and US (CX-I), vide its letter dated 10.05.2016 stated that the queries pertained to the Finance Bill, 2016 which was placed during the Union Budget 2016. While relying on the decision of the Commission in Shri Amin Ali vs. Department of Revenue, File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00456 dated 03.01.2007, it was stated that all matters connected with the Budget and its approval were essentially parts of legislative process. While explaining the process of Budget formulation, it was stated that the RTI Act clearly recognised the need to preserve sensitive confidential information and that disclosure of Budget related information could affect the efficient functioning of the Government and could encourage litigation and disputes. Therefore, it would not be in the interest of the State to reveal information relating to Budgetary process which would be covered under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, exemption u/s. 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 was also claimed by the Respondent. Moreover, it was 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 dated 03.06.2016, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
3. The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. R.K. Jain;
Respondent: Mr. Shankar Sarma, US, CBEC;
4. The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and submitted that no satisfactory information was provided in the matter, till date. While referring to Point A of his RTI application, the Appellant submitted that information relating to file number could not be claimed to be confidential information under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. Explaining that none of his queries pertained to the Finance Bill, 2016 but related to the Amendments made in the Central Excise Act by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Act No. 05 of 1986), the Appellant submitted that the information was disclosable u/s. 8(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 since it related to an occurrence of an event or matter which had taken place, occurred or happened 20 years before the date on which the application was made u/s. 6 of the RTI Act, 2005. In his Second Appeal dated 06.07.2016 (Diarised on 08.07.2016), the Appellant submitted that the order of the FAA was illegal, incorrect, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and against the public policy and contrary to the factual aspects of the case hence liable to be set aside. It was submitted that the FAA had erred in deciding the Appeal ex parte without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Appellant which was in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the Appeal was disposed off without any opportunity of hearing. It was also submitted that the FAA had erred in observing that the information sought pertained to Finance Bill, 2016 placed during the Union Budget, 2016, whereas the Appellant had sought information with regard to amendments made in Central Excise Act by the Central Excise Tariff Act (1985) (Act No. 5 of 1986) and not about the Finance Bill, 2016. It was further submitted that the FAA erred in not appreciating that the CPIO had deliberately and malafidely denied the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(a) without giving any justification as to how the said exemption clause was applicable. In this context a reference was also made to the provisions of Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Joginder Pal Gulati v. OSD-WP No. 6733/2011 decided on 02.04.2013 wherein while considering the scope of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI act, 2005, it was held that there cannot be a definition of expression "Economic Interest" as used in Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 and that after considering the facts of the case, the High Court ordered disclosure of information. It was further submitted that CIC decisions in Shanmuga Patro v. Department of Revenue (TRU) and Amin Merchant v. Department of Revenue had no applicability to the present case as the same were passed on entirely different facts and circumstances. In support of his contentions, the Appellant cited the decision of the Commission in Omprakash Kashiram v. CPIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat F. No. CIC/SM/A/2011/002100 dated 17.07.2012 to submit that the CIC had directed the Ministry of Finance to show the budget documents to the Appellant. A reference was also made to the decision in Girish Chandra Joshi v. Department of Revenue F. No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000279 dated 08.12.2010 to submit that where information related to post Budget exercise, it was disclosable. It was also submitted that as per the decision of the High Court of Kerala in State of Kerala v. K. Bala Krishna MANU/KE/0008/1961 : AIR 1961 Ker 25 Budget related information and documents were confidential only till the presentation of the budget. The Appellant further submitted that neither the CPIO nor the FAA had exhibited any reason as to how exemption u/s. 8(1)(d) and (e) were applicable to the case. It was also stated that the FAA had failed to appreciate that the CPIO had not even provided the file number relating to the amendments made in the Central Excise Act by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(a) which proved the malafide of the CPIO. The Appellant submitted that the CPIO had deliberately and malafidely taken contradictory stand as on one hand he had denied the information by claiming exemption u/s. 8(1)(a), (d) and (e) while on the other hand he claimed the information was already available on the Government website. It was also submitted that another Public Authority (Lok Sabha Secretariat) had provided similar information to the Appellant in response to another RTI Application made to them. Explaining that the Appellant had learnt that there was a difference in the version of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the Central Excise Tariff Bill as passed by both the Houses of the Parliament and as assented by the Hon'ble President therefore the information was sought in Larger Public Interest and information was even otherwise disclosable u/s. 8(2) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant therefore inter alia prayed that the impugned appellate order may be set aside to the extent challenged in 2nd Appeal and CPIO be directed to provide information in question in a time bound frame, imposition of penalty on CPIO for deliberately and malafidely denying the information an compensation be awarded to him u/s. 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act.
5. In its reply, the Respondent at the outset tendered his unconditional apology and admitted that there may have been some typographical error in reply given by his predecessors CPIO/FAA while referring to the provisions of Finance Bill, 2016. However, it was explained that the information sought regarding amendment to the Central Excise Act was already available on their website. With regard to the contradictory stands taken by the Respondent in its written and oral explanations, no satisfactory reply was offered except to tender an apology for the same.
6. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of available records, the Commission was appalled to learn that the CPIO vide its reply dated 10.05.2016, 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 u/s. 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 u/s. 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.
7. Furthermore, it was observed that the query in point-A pertained to file number which was generic information not related to any sensitive and confidential matter. On being queried regarding the reason why file number was not provided to the Appellant, the Respondent submitted that this information was available with another Section. The Commission felt that in such circumstances assistance of the concerned Section could have been sought or transfer could have been made u/s. 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 at the time of replying to the RTI Application instead of providing a contradictory response by denying information u/s. 8(1)(a)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
8. It was also submitted by the Appellant that he had learnt that there was a difference in the version of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the Central Excise Tariff Bill as passed by both the Houses of the Parliament and as assented by the Hon'ble President. Therefore the information was sought in Larger Public Interest and information and was disclosable u/s. 8(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: MANU/SC/1103/2012 : (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. 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 ([MANU/SC/0020/1952 : AIR 1952 SC 252]). 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 [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
10. Also the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 13/07/2012 in (W.P.(C) No. 1243 of 2011-UPSC vs. R.K. Jain) wherein while discussing on the issue of disclosure of information in larger public interest the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
"21.... The expression "personal information" used in Section 8(1)(j) means information personal to any "person", that the public authority may hold. For instance, a public authority may in connection with its functioning require any other person to provide information which may be personal to that person. It is that information, pertaining to that other person, which the public authority may refuse to disclose, if the information sought satisfies the conditions set out in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act, i.e., if such information has no relationship to any public activity (of the person who has provided the information, or who is the source of the information, or to whom that information pertains), or to public interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual (unless larger public interest justifies disclosure)."
24............. The second half of the first part of clause (j) of Section 8(1) shows that when personal information in respect of a person is sought, the authority concerned shall weigh the competing claims i.e., the claim for the protection of personal information of the concerned person on the one hand, and the claim of public interest on the other, and if "public interest" justifies disclosure, i.e., the public interest outweighs the need for protection of personal information, the concerned authority shall disclose the information.
27. I may also observe that public interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected. The expression "public interest" is not capable of a precise definition and has not a rigid meaning and is elastic and takes its colors from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with the time and the state of the society and its needs."
11. Moreover, as submitted by the Appellant in his Second Appeal, information of similar nature was provided to him by the Lok Sabha Secretariat vide reply dated 20.05.2016 in response to another RTI application filed by him. It was observed that the queries raised in such application pertained to inspection of original copy of Central Excise Tariff Bill, 1995 as introduced in Lok Sabha, details and copies of amendments proposed and accepted/approved in the aforesaid Bill by Lok Sabha, etc which were appropriately responded by the Public Authority in such matter.
DECISION:
12. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, while expressing concern over the negligent attitude adopted by the Respondent Public Authority in handling this RTI application, 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.
13. 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.
14. The FAA is also advised to be alert and cautious in the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 and comply with the procedure exercising due diligence.
15. The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.