Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + Board Indian Laws - 2009 (8) TMI Board This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2009 (8) TMI 862 - Board - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of RTI application by CPIO under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Allegation of misuse of RTI Act for business promotion.
3. Non-compliance with procedural requirements under the RTI Act, particularly Sections 6, 8, 11, and 24.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of RTI Application by CPIO under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j):
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking various documents related to a case involving Ms. Pushpa Lakhumal Tulani and the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The CPIO rejected the application citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO argued that the requested documents pertain to third-party information and are exempt from disclosure. The appellant contended that the information sought does not fall under the exempted categories and that quasi-judicial orders are public documents not subject to third-party confidentiality.

2. Allegation of Misuse of RTI Act for Business Promotion:
The CPIO alleged that the appellant, who runs a publishing house, was using the RTI Act to collect information for promoting his business. The appellant argued that the RTI Act does not require the applicant to disclose the purpose of seeking information and that the CPIO's allegations were baseless and without any supporting evidence. The judgment noted that sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the RTI Act stipulates that the applicant is not required to give any reason for requesting the information.

3. Non-compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The appellant argued that the CPIO did not follow the procedural requirements laid down in the RTI Act, particularly Sections 6, 8, 11, and 24. The judgment highlighted that the CPIO failed to follow the mechanism provided in Section 11 for dealing with third-party information. The CPIO did not issue a notice to the third party or consider whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed any potential harm. Additionally, the CPIO did not provide specific reasons for the exemptions claimed under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j).

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant claimed that the CPIO's order was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The judgment acknowledged this violation and emphasized the importance of following due process before denying information. The appellant requested that the order be set aside and the CPIO be directed to provide the information after following the correct procedure.

Conclusion:
The judgment set aside the CPIO's order dated 26-5-2009 and remanded the case for reconsideration. The CPIO was directed to re-evaluate the application in light of the RTI Act's provisions, particularly Sections 6, 8, 11, and 24. The CPIO was also instructed to follow the procedure for handling third-party information and to provide a personal hearing to the appellant if requested. The judgment emphasized that the RTI Act has an overriding effect on other statutes and that the applicant's purpose for seeking information should not influence the decision to disclose information. The appeal was disposed of with the option for the appellant to file a second appeal with the Central Information Commission if aggrieved by the decision.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates