2013 (10) TMI 86 - Commission - Indian Laws

Right to information - Appellant sought information relating to action taken against two specified pre-shipment agencies as recommended by Customs Excise Appellate Tribunal in its order in case 2011 (4) TMI 228 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - Exemption u/s 8(1)(d) - Held that - The Commission is not in agreement with the decision of the CPIO to correlate the information sought at point (a) & (d) to the exemption clause 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. If certain action has been taken against any such pre-inspection agency for not doing their work properly such information ought to be in public domain once the investigation/inquiry in relation to the same is over therefore this information is to be provided to the appellant. However, in relation to the complaints/references in relation to which investigation/inquiry is still pending, the name, complaint no. and date of complaint shall be provided as premature disclosure of information may effect the process of investigation - such information is expected to be a part of the record of the public authority - order of the first appellate authority should not be merely a cryptic order, the first appellate authority is bound to pass a speaking order giving reasoning behind the order - Decision in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of information under RTI application.
2. Availability of information regarding actions taken against specific agencies.
3. Responsibility for approving inspection agencies.
4. Disclosure of complaints against inspection agencies.
5. Adequacy of reasoning in the order of the first appellate authority.

---

The judgment addresses the RTI application filed by the Appellant seeking information on actions taken against pre-shipment agencies as recommended by the Customs Excise Appellate Tribunal. The CPIO provided a pointwise response, which was upheld by the first appellate authority. The Commissioner decided to examine the reply concerning specific points contested by the Appellant. The Appellant's requests for information regarding actions taken against certain agencies were denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, citing third-party information. The Commission disagreed with this denial, stating that information on actions taken should be in the public domain post-investigation. However, premature disclosure of pending investigation details could affect the process. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide information on complaints against inspection agencies since 2006 and their current status.

Regarding the responsibility for approving inspection agencies, the CPIO claimed the information was not available, but the Commission disagreed, stating that such information should be part of the public authority's records. The CPIO was directed to provide this information. The Commission also ordered the disclosure of complaints against inspection agencies since January 2006 and their current status. The Appellant raised concerns about the first appellate authority's order lacking reasoning and the denial of a personal hearing. The Commissioner emphasized that the first appellate authority must pass a detailed order with reasoning. The Commission instructed compliance with its directions within two weeks, leading to the disposal of the appeal.