9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1065 - Commission - Indian LawsRTI application - Copy of written submissions along with Vakalatnama and 3 case laws submitted by noticee No. 3 M/s. Ganesha Impes Pvt. Ltd. mentioned at page no. 21 in third last para of order-in-Original seeked - Held that - The Commission heard the submissions made by appellant at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 26-05-2014, respondent s response dated 25-06-2014, FAA s order dated 26-08-2014, appellant s written submissions dated 24-02-2015 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal. The Commission is of the considered view that the appellant has been deprived by the respondents deliberately from having the benefits of the RTI Act, 2005, even after lapse of more than eight months period. Thus, the respondents have defeated the very purpose of the RTI Act, 2005 for which it was legislated by Parliament of India. As such, the Commission feels that appellant s second appeal deserves to be allowed in toto. Therefore, it is allowed in toto. In view of the above, the respondents are hereby directed to provide the complete and categorical information, issue-wise, to the appellant as per his RTI application, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission. If need be, Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 be also invoked in the matter.
Issues:
1. Denial of information under RTI Act, 2005 by CPIO. 2. Upholding of CPIO's decision by FAA. 3. Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission. Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of information under RTI Act, 2005 by CPIO The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking specific information related to written submissions, Vakalatnama, and case laws submitted by a party mentioned in a particular order. The CPIO denied the information citing Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant, feeling aggrieved by the response, filed a First Appeal (FA) as the desired information was not provided. Issue 2: Upholding of CPIO's decision by FAA The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the decision of the CPIO, thereby denying the information sought by the Appellant. The FAA rejected the FA on the grounds that the case had not been finally adjudicated and the information could be related to an ongoing investigation, invoking Sections 8(l)(d), (h), and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Issue 3: Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission During the Second Appeal, the Appellant's advocate argued that the information sought did not impede the ongoing investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) but pertained to documents submitted during adjudication proceedings. It was clarified that the documents were not part of the DRI investigation but were submitted by a co-noticee during the adjudication process. The Commission found that the plea taken under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 was not applicable in this case. The Commission thoroughly reviewed the case file, including the RTI application, responses, and appeal submissions. It concluded that the Appellant had been deliberately deprived of the benefits of the RTI Act, 2005 by the respondents. The Commission held that the Second Appeal deserved to be allowed entirely, directing the respondents to provide the requested information within 30 days. In summary, the Central Information Commission allowed the Second Appeal, emphasizing the importance of upholding the principles of transparency and accountability enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005. The decision highlighted the need for public authorities to adhere to the provisions of the Act and provide information to citizens in a timely and transparent manner.
|
