2007 (2) TMI 562 - Commission - Indian Laws

RTI - Information requested was related to search and seizure - Central Excise Commissionerate, in how many cases, Show Cause Notices have been issued and for what amount denial of information Held that - Respondents have erred in conjuring up all the manner of imaginary hardship to third parties and linking the information to exemption under Section 8(1). These provisions are not attracted to the present case - information is already in the public domain and is decidedly related to public interest, in so far as the public has a right to know the result of the public authority s campaign against unlawful activity such as duty-evasion, etc., for which the public authority has been created in the first place - appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Disclosure of information under RTI Act
- Exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act
- Public interest vs. commercial interests

The judgment by the Central Information Commission pertains to a second appeal filed regarding the disclosure of information under the RTI Act. The appellant requested details related to search and seizure operations, show cause notices, and adjudication orders issued by the Central Excise Commissionerate. The CPIO declined disclosure citing exemptions under Section 8(1)(d), (h), and (j) of the RTI Act, emphasizing potential harm to third-party commercial interests. Additionally, the CPIO argued that information collected by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) during raids is exempt from disclosure under Section 24(1) of the Act.

The Appellate Authority (AA) upheld the CPIO's decision, adding that the information also fell under the exemption of Section 8(1)(e). However, the appellant contended that the requested information did not attract these exemptions, citing practices of other enforcement agencies in publicizing similar details without waiting for the conclusion of proceedings. The appellant argued that the information sought pertained to show cause notices issued by the Central Excise Department, not the DRI, and should be disclosed.

In the decision, the Commission ruled that the statistical details requested by the appellant should be disclosed as they did not fall under any exemption. The Commission noted that the contentious issue was the disclosure of personal details related to levies imposed after the adjudication of show cause notices. It clarified that the information sought was harmless and related to the final outcome of adjudication proceedings, not the initial searches and seizures. The Commission emphasized that such information should be in the public domain and did not prejudice third-party interests. Therefore, the Commission directed the CPIO to disclose all requested information within three weeks, allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment balanced the principles of transparency under the RTI Act with the need to protect commercial interests, ultimately ruling in favor of disclosure based on public interest and the nature of the information requested.