9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econd Appeal, he referred to a reply received from Shri Rishi Yadav, Asst. Commissioner, CGST and CEX Mumbai dated 28.08.2017 against another RTI application dated 04.07.2017 on similar issues stating that the file was retrieved from call book for adjudication process which was in progress. However, in the present instance a contradictory response was provided since the CPIO vide letter dated 25.01.2018 informed him that the OIO had not been passed by the adjudicatory authority as both the cases were kept in the call book. Thus, he failed to understand that when it was said that the adjudication process was in progress, how the matter could be again sent to call book without any instruction issued by the Board. In its reply, the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provide a satisfactory response to the Appellant. The provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and various judgments on the subject matter clearly establish that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response to the information seekers. Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 also states that where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 clearly stated that the PIO acts as the Pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The relevant extracts of the decision are as under: "7 "it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, wherein it was held as under: "6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been unable to discharge that burden. The mere fact that a criminal case is pending may not by itself be sufficient unless there is a specific power to deny disclosure of the information concerning such case." Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed that ".....The Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
