9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on 1-6-2009 before you and various officers and officers under your Commissionerate with details such as date and No. show cause notice, Name and designation of Officer before whom pending, amount involved, date of reply received. Number of hearings held/fixed and Name of the party. (C) List of cases in which adjudication order passed by officers under your Commissionerate during 1-4-2008 to 15-6-2009 including proceedings dropped with details such as name of party, amount of duty, penalty with R.F., Confirmed/involved, Order No. and date and name of Advocate/consultant. 4. The C.P.I.O. of the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy had forwarded the R.T.I. application to all the C.P.I.Os of the Central Excise Divisions under Trichy Commissionerate vide File C. No. 11/39/2030/2009 RTI, dated 23-6-2009 under Section 6(3) of the R.T.I. Act, 2005. 5. The Deputy Commissioner (CPIO), Karur vide letter C. No. RTI Act/1/2009, dated 7-7-2009 had informed the appellant that - "the information sought on list of cases pending adjudication, list of cases adjudicated and 335J register consisting the particulars of the officers involved in gathering intelligenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... third party information, Section 11(A) lays that such information can be provided after putting the third party to notice which has not been done by the CPIO. (h) the information sought by the appellant vide Clauses B and C relates to the adjudication matters and once a show cause notice is issued it cannot be said the matter is pending for investigation. (i) that as per Evidence Act, the documents confirming the records of the acts of official body or Tribunal are treated as public documents and a public document cannot be called a third party document (j) the CPIO claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 is erroneous as the appellant has sought information as to copies of 335J register maintained in the offices; that taking shelter under Section 8(1)(d) without making any effort to ascertain the same as per the provisions of Section 11 ibid clearly manifests prejudice and the learned CPIO has pre-judged the issue without applying Section 11 ibid. (k) the CPIO has not ascertained whether the so called third party has in fact claimed any confidentiality in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for penalty under Section 20(1)(2) of the RTI Act, 2005. (w) the appellant is entitled to get the entire information. 7. The appellant prayed for the order in question to be set aside and the CPIO may be directed to provide the information to the appellant, CPIO may be directed to file reply to appeal with copy to the appellant and penalty be imposed u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI on the CPIO. 8. The CPIO was called upon to discharge his onus to prove that the denial of the request was justified. The CPIO made his submissions vide his letter dated 18-8-2009 highlighting the following : (i) In 335J register, the particulars of the officers who involved in the process of gathering information, investigation etc. are being recorded. The intelligence/information about tax evaders are being collected through discrete acts and means by the officers and disclosure of such information may endanger the life or physical safety of such officers and hence copies of offence register as requested was denied (Section 8(1)(g)). (ii) The process of investigation is still under way in few cases, so the disclosure of details o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. (e) ...... (f) ..... (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safey of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; (i) and (j) .......... Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person". 13. I had called for the 335J register maintained in this office. The 335J register, is a record of offences and penalties. Each offence should be registered in this record immediately as it is detected (or immediately as the report is received by a superior). The register is prescribed for the purpose of monitoring the progress and for taking follow up action. The 335J register contains so many details including the names of detecting officers, names of offenders, nature of offences, rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e RTI ACT, exemption can be sought only when furnishing of the information would impede the process of investigation. The 335J register may contain certain information which if revealed would impede the process of investigation. In such case, the CPIO is well within his powers conferred under the RTI Act to examine the matter in the light of provisions of RTI Act and to arrive at his decision his own wisdom clearly giving the reasons for denial of those information alone under Section 8(1)(h). But in the instant case, I find that the CPIO has not done that. In my considered view, ends of justice would be met if the CPIO is directed to examine the matter afresh in the light of spirit of Section 8(1)(h) and Section 10 of the RTI Act and consider furnishing of pages of 335J registers for which provision of Section 8(1)(h) can not be applied. Accordingly CPIO is directed to furnish information within 10 days of receipt of this decision, by applying doctrine of severability as specified in Section 10 of the RTI Act, if applicable and furnish the information which would not impede the process of investigation. 16. As regard to information sought under question (B) and (C), I find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 18. Regarding the claim of the appellant in the appeal seeking directions to be issued to the CPIO to file reply to the appeal with a copy to the appellant, it is made clear that the Section 19(5) of the RTI Act provides that in any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO, who denied the request and the CPIO is bound to discharge that onus by making submissions to the appellate authority. As such there is no provision in the law for furnishing of copy of reply received from the CPIOs on the appeal filed by the appellant. Therefore, I do not find any justification on the plea of the appellant for issuing any directions to the CPIO in this regard and accordingly the request of the appellant cannot be acceded to. 19. With regard to penalty to be imposed on the CPIO under Section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI for mala fidely delaying and denying the information to Appellant, I find that Section 20 of the RTI ACT, 2005 empowers the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission to impose penalty. The Appellate Authorities are not vested with the powers of imposing penalty. Moreover, I find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
