2013 (12) TMI 320 - CGOVT - Indian Laws

Improper reply - Held that - When the information sought by the applicant under the RTI Act and information provided by the CPIO in response to the RTI application are read together, it appears that the CPIO should have handled the application with the seriousness expected of him as a responsible Group A officer entrusted with the task of implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act - Regarding non-reply to an application, it is possible that CPIO could have genuinely missed them by an oversight, since these appear to be two identical applications addressed to different authorities but onus came on the CPIO, since the circular was issued by the section for which CPIO is responsible - The application, grounds of appeal and views expressed during the hearing, CPIO is directed to provide information for items A to D of the application, on the basis of files available on this subject, in his section; regarding E and F, he should transfer the relevant portions to the CPIOs concerned under intimation to the RTI applicant; regarding G, he should allow the RTI applicant to inspect (on a mutually convenient date) all the files, records, documents, correspondence, note sheets and registers relating to the information sought by him - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CPIO's RTI response regarding circular on service tax on remittances.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the CPIO's response under the RTI Act regarding circular No. 163/14/2012-S.T. on service tax on remittances.
2. The appellant sought various information related to the circular, including meeting minutes, draft details, revenue implications, and pending cases.
3. The CPIO's response to the appellant's requests was inadequate, stating that certain information was not maintained.
4. The appellant challenged the CPIO's response, claiming it was illegal, not exempted under the RTI Act, and in violation of RTI provisions.
5. During a personal hearing, the appellant accused the CPIO of withholding information and requested an inquiry against the CPIO for not providing complete information.
6. The judge found that the CPIO should have handled the application more seriously and provided proper information where available.
7. The judge directed the CPIO to provide the information requested by the appellant and allow inspection of relevant records, documents, and files.

Finding:
The judge directed the CPIO to provide information for items A to D, transfer relevant portions for E and F to concerned CPIOs, and allow the appellant to inspect all files related to the information sought.