2013 (10) TMI 39 - Commission - Indian Laws

Right to information - Incomplete and incorrect information in reply - Held that - CESTAT, has not cited any of the exemption provisions of the RTI Act for not disclosing the information to the appellant, neither has the CPIO furnished any reasons for holding that the 3rd party information cannot be provided. The FAA has quoted the provision of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without, however, giving reasons as to how the information if disclosed would impede the process of investigation/enquiry or apprehension or prosecution of offenders - Shri Victor James, the then CPIO/Under Secretary, has prima facie provided misleading information to the appellant, at Clause (f) of his reply dated 16-9-2011 that no such report of the Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. C. Satapathy has been received in the Department of Revenue, whereas Registrar, CESTAT by his letter dated 18-8-2011 has already forwarded a copy of the said report to the Department of Revenue. A separate show-cause notice u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act would be issued to the Shri Victor James, the then CPIO/Under Secretary asking him to show-cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for providing misleading information to the appellant- Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of incomplete and incorrect information provided in response to RTI application.
2. Objection by CESTAT regarding disclosure of documents.
3. Ex-parte decision by FAA on third party objection.
4. Allegations of malafide intent to delay and obstruct information.
5. Appellant's claim of false and incorrect information provided by CPIO.
6. Non-disclosure of information by CPIO under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act.
7. Need for complete information disclosure to the appellant.
8. Misleading information provided by CPIO leading to show-cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Ministry of Finance for providing incomplete information in response to his RTI application. The CPIO's responses to the queries were deemed unsatisfactory, leading to the appellant's dissatisfaction and subsequent appeals.

2. CESTAT objected to the disclosure of documents requested in the RTI application. The CPIO informed the appellant of CESTAT's objection, causing further complications in obtaining the desired information.

3. The FAA made an ex-parte decision on the third party objection raised by CESTAT. The appellant contested this decision, alleging malafide intent to delay and obstruct the information flow.

4. The appellant accused the CPIO of deliberately withholding information and providing false details to prevent disclosure. Allegations were made regarding lapses in providing complete and accurate information.

5. The CPIO cited Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to justify non-disclosure of information, claiming the process of enquiry was not concluded at the time, thus exempting it from disclosure.

6. Despite the lack of specific exemption provisions cited by CESTAT or the CPIO, the FAA invoked Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without providing detailed reasons for withholding the information.

7. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide complete information to the appellant within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the RTI request.

8. The CPIO was found to have provided misleading information, prompting the Commission to issue a show-cause notice under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. This action was taken due to discrepancies between the information provided and the actual facts, highlighting the need for accountability and transparency in information dissemination.