2014 (1) TMI 1194 - Commission - Indian Laws

Request for inspection of documents - Right to information - Partial documents provided - Held that - CPIO and the AA passed the impugned orders in their quasi-judicial capacity as distinguished from their administrative capacity. Both the authorities are mandated to apply their mind while taking a decision. They are not expected to pass mechanical orders. Nor can Appellate Authority ask the CPIO to put up draft order before him for blindly appending his signatures thereon. As noted above, Shri Vijay Kumar, CPIO, has communicated in writing to the appellant that as desired by the Appellate Authority, he had put up a draft order which was signed by the Appellate Authority. This clearly demonstrates non-application of mind on the part of Appellate Authority. Hence, this order cannot be allowed to stand and is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority with the direction to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. RTI application seeking information on various aspects related to the Empowered Committee on GSTN and SPV.
2. CPIO's response offering inspection and subsequent partial disclosure of documents.
3. Appeal before the Appellate Authority regarding withheld information.
4. Appellant's contention on the disclosure of entire information after inspection offer.
5. Allegation of Appellate Authority passing order mechanically without proper application of mind.
6. Analysis of CPIO and Appellate Authority's quasi-judicial roles and the requirement for proper decision-making.
7. Quashing of the Appellate Authority's order and remanding the matter for fresh decision.
8. Caution to the Appellate Authority for violating the RTI Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The RTI application sought extensive information on the Empowered Committee on GSTN and SPV, including terms of reference, meeting minutes, proposed deadlines, decision details, shareholding, agreements, and more.
2. The CPIO responded by offering inspection and subsequently providing only a portion of the requested documents, leading to a dispute over the withheld information.
3. An appeal was made to the Appellate Authority, who upheld the CPIO's decision citing the ongoing process of creating the GSTN - SPV and the need for further steps.
4. The appellant argued that the offer of inspection by the CPIO constituted full disclosure, making the withholding of documents invalid.
5. Allegations were made against the Appellate Authority for mechanically passing the order without proper consideration, as evidenced by the sequence of events leading to the decision.
6. Both the CPIO and the Appellate Authority were expected to exercise their quasi-judicial roles diligently, ensuring thorough consideration before making decisions, which was found lacking in this case.
7. The judgment quashed the Appellate Authority's order due to the demonstrated lack of application of mind and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after granting the appellant a personal hearing.
8. Additionally, the Appellate Authority was cautioned for violating the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, emphasizing the importance of proper decision-making processes in such matters.