2013 (7) TMI 294 - Commission - Indian Laws

Non furnishment of information - Defence taken under RTI ACT - Held that - CPIO has not complied with the directions of the FAA and his contention that the appellant has not approached him, establishes his casual approach towards RTI matters. The CPIO is supposed to take cognizance of the FAA s directions. He is cautioned to be more careful in future while dealing with RTI matters - CPIO directed to allow inspection of the files within prescribed time limit - Decided in favour of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of information in response to RTI-application; Disclosure of note-sheet portions of files; Non-disclosure of information in pending cases; Compliance with FAA's directions.

Denial of Information in Response to RTI-Application:
The appellant filed an appeal against the respondent Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise for denying information in reply to his RTI-application. The appellant sought details of Vigilance enquiries against a specific individual, status of complaints/cases, inspection of records, and copies of Vigilance reports. The CPIO provided point-wise information to the appellant, leading to the first appeal filed by the appellant.

Disclosure of Note-Sheet Portions of Files:
The FAA held that inspection of closed investigation files should be allowed within 15 days, with specific documents provided upon request. However, the note sheet portion of the files was not to be disclosed under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. For cases under investigation, disclosure was not allowed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

Non-Disclosure of Information in Pending Cases:
The appellant, in the second appeal, challenged the FAA's order, claiming it to be illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the RTI Act. The appellant argued against non-disclosure of note-sheet portions of closed cases and information on pending cases. The appellant accused the CPIO of deliberately obstructing information despite prior disclosure during inspection.

Compliance with FAA's Directions:
During the hearing, the CPIO stated that the appellant did not approach for inspection as directed by the FAA. The Commission noted the CPIO's failure to comply with the FAA's directions and emphasized the need for careful handling of RTI matters. The CPIO was directed to allow inspection of closed investigation files and provide requested documents promptly. Additionally, the CPIO was instructed to update the appellant on the status of investigations regarding the individual in question. The Commission found no reason to interfere with the respondent's reply on other points.