CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
…..
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00264
Dated, the 17th May, 2007
Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava,
128/947, Y Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur-208 011.
Respondents: Shri S.C. Jana, Commissioner of Central Excise & CPIO,
Kanpur, 117/7, Sarvodya Nagar, Kanpur.
Shri Anil Bhatnagar, Chief Commissioner Customs & Central Excise & AA,
7-A Ashok Marg, Lucknow
This second appeal has been filed by Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava against the order dated 3.11.2006 of the Appellate Authority (AA) corresponding to the appellant's first RTI-request dated 14.9.2006 and the CPIO's decision thereon dated 26.9.2006.
2. Parties were called for a hearing on 16.5.2007. The appellant was present in person whereas the respondents were represented by the CPIO. Counsels for the third party (M/s. Kothari Products Limited), Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta and Shri Prakash Kumar Gupta came late in the afternoon since their train arrived late. They were given a separate hearing, when the appellant and the respondents had already left.
3. The RTI-request of the appellant originally made to the CPIO read as follows:-
“Case of M/s Kothari Products Ltd was made in September, 2002 (rough date / month). Notice was issued in January, 2004. All the documents / pages are required for this case only under “Right To Information Act”. The required documents are:
1. Certified / Attested copies of all the pages of receipt given by M/s. Kothari Products Ltd. (Pan Parag) for receiving the Notice are required.
2. Certified / Attested copies of all the letters issued and received by the Central Excise Department between January, 2004 and the date when M/s. Kothari Products Ltd went to High Court.
3. Certified / Attested copies of all the cross examination details of cross examination was made in presence of Commission to decide the notice.
4. Certified / Attested copies of all the letters written by the Central Excise Department to M/s. Kothari Products Ltd, any person, etc. for disposal of the documents (other than in notice) taken into possession during raid on Pan Parag.
5. Certified / Attested copies of all the letters received by Central Excise Department from any party, any person etc. for disposal of the documents (other than in notice) taken into possession during raid on Pan Parag.
6. Documents referred in the notice are kept in Central Excise Office. Certified / Attested copies of all papers expressing possession of transfer of the documents from one person to another person.
7. Certified / Attested copies of all the note-sheet pages of all those which were in operation / use after January, 2004.
8. Certified / Attested copies of all the applications of M/s. Kothari Products Ltd made in High Court, Allahabad.
9. Certified / Attested copies of the all the replies given by Central Excise Department for point no.8.
10. Certified / Attested copy of the Order of High Court, Allahabad.”
“1. How many times senior officers / directors / representatives of M/s. Kothari Products Ltd have met Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner after the notice (September 2002) and till March, 2006? Please give the basis of the information also.
2. The entry number and date of Visitor Register which shows that senior officers/directors /representatives of M/s. Kothari Products Ltd have visited the Central Excise Office after August, 2002 and before March, 2006.
3. File Numbers of all files concerning the case after January, 2004.
4. The time period for deciding the notice is 5 to 6 months only. Why the notice of M/s. Kothari Products td was not decided by the Commissioner within that period?
5. Name & post of the Officers of Central Excise Department and the no of pending days for which action was not taken by the officer for helping in deciding the case.
6. What happened to the documents seized by the officers during raid of home of Sri Rajesh Sharma?
7. Name of the officer who are [sic] and were dealing the case for department before Commissioner for decision of the case.”
“1. To inspect the documents seized from the home of Sri Rajesh Sharma during raid on M/s Kothari Products Ltd.
2. To inspect the documents containing the details of the visitors for period January 2004 to March 2006.”
4. The respondents admitted that investigation in this case has already been completed and all formalities
including final adjudication have been concluded. The respondents’ main objection to disclosure of the
documents requested by the appellant was that most of these were third-party documents which could not
be disclosed as these belonged to that party. It has been the experience of the Commission that very often
the Appellate Authorities err in deciding whether to disclose or not to disclose information provided to the
public authorities by third parties. Important thing to remember in all matters relating to third parties is,
that the third-party has every right to defend the confidentiality of the information provided by him to the respondents, but he has no right to veto their disclosure to an information-seeker
U/s 11(1), any third party objection is to be evaluated on merit for a decision on whether it was valid in terms of the provisions of RTI Act. The CPIO can and should overrule any such objection which cannot sustain itself when interrogated under the provisions of the RTI Act.
5. In the present case, even if considerable amount of information requested by the appellant pertained to the third-party, this entire information was part of an investigation, which has now been admittedly concluded. The only possible reason to withhold this information could be it attracting exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and, not any third-party objection.
6. Since, as admitted by the CPIO during the hearing, the investigation is now over, disclosure of all information involved in that investigation cannot now be said to be exempted under Section 8(1)(h).
7. It was posed to the CPIO whether he would have any objection to allowing the appellant to inspect the files connected with the range of information which the appellant has sought. He answered in the negative.
8. In consideration of the above, it is directed that the respondents, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, on a date and time fixed for the purpose, allow the appellant to inspect files and all connected documents corresponding to the queries the appellant had raised in his RTI-request. The appellant shall be allowed to take such copies and extracts, on payment of usual fee and further fee (cost), as may be admissible. The respondents are also directed, that should in their consideration parts of information would have been covered by the exemption u/s 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, such information may be withheld from disclosure applying the severability clause of Section 10(1) of RTI Act.
9. The appeal is disposed of with these directions.
Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH )
Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar
Address of parties:
1. Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, 128/947, Y Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur-208 0111.
2. Shri S.C. Jana, Commissioner of Central Excise & CPIO, Kanpur, 117/7, Sarvodya Nagar, Kanpur.
3. Shri Anil Bhatnagar, Chief Commissioner Customs & Central Excise & Appellate Authority, 7-A Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
…..
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00264
Dated, the 17th May, 2007
Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava,
128/947, Y Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur-208 011.
Respondents: Shri S.C. Jana, Commissioner of Central Excise & CPIO,
Kanpur, 117/7, Sarvodya Nagar, Kanpur.
Shri Anil Bhatnagar, Chief Commissioner Customs & Central Excise & AA,
7-A Ashok Marg, Lucknow
This second appeal has been filed by Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava against the order dated 3.11.2006 of the Appellate Authority (AA) corresponding to the appellant's first RTI-request dated 14.9.2006 and the CPIO's decision thereon dated 26.9.2006.
2. Parties were called for a hearing on 16.5.2007. The appellant was present in person whereas the respondents were represented by the CPIO. Counsels for the third party (M/s. Kothari Products Limited), Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta and Shri Prakash Kumar Gupta came late in the afternoon since their train arrived late. They were given a separate hearing, when the appellant and the respondents had already left.
3. The RTI-request of the appellant originally made to the CPIO read as follows:-
“Case of M/s Kothari Products Ltd was made in September, 2002 (rough date / month). Notice was issued in January, 2004. All the documents / pages are required for this case only under “Right To Information Act”. The required documents are:
1. Certified / Attested copies of all the pages of receipt given by M/s. Kothari Products Ltd. (Pan Parag) for receiving the Notice are required.
2. Certified / Attested copies of all the letters issued and received by the Central Excise Department between January, 2004 and the date when M/s. Kothari Products Ltd went to High Court.
3. Certified / Attested copies of all the cross examination details of cross examination was made in presence of Commission to decide the notice.
4. Certified / Attested copies of all the letters written by the Central Excise Department to M/s. Kothari Products Ltd, any person, etc. for disposal of the documents (other than in notice) taken into possession during raid on Pan Parag.
5. Certified / Attested copies of all the letters received by Central Excise Department from any party, any person etc. for disposal of the documents (other than in notice) taken into possession during raid on Pan Parag.
6. Documents referred in the notice are kept in Central Excise Office. Certified / Attested copies of all papers expressing possession of transfer of the documents from one person to another person.
7. Certified / Attested copies of all the note-sheet pages of all those which were in operation / use after January, 2004.
8. Certified / Attested copies of all the applications of M/s. Kothari Products Ltd made in High Court, Allahabad.
9. Certified / Attested copies of the all the replies given by Central Excise Department for point no.8.
10. Certified / Attested copy of the Order of High Court, Allahabad.”
“1. How many times senior officers / directors / representatives of M/s. Kothari Products Ltd have met Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner after the notice (September 2002) and till March, 2006? Please give the basis of the information also.
2. The entry number and date of Visitor Register which shows that senior officers/directors /representatives of M/s. Kothari Products Ltd have visited the Central Excise Office after August, 2002 and before March, 2006.
3. File Numbers of all files concerning the case after January, 2004.
4. The time period for deciding the notice is 5 to 6 months only. Why the notice of M/s. Kothari Products td was not decided by the Commissioner within that period?
5. Name & post of the Officers of Central Excise Department and the no of pending days for which action was not taken by the officer for helping in deciding the case.
6. What happened to the documents seized by the officers during raid of home of Sri Rajesh Sharma?
7. Name of the officer who are [sic] and were dealing the case for department before Commissioner for decision of the case.”
“1. To inspect the documents seized from the home of Sri Rajesh Sharma during raid on M/s Kothari Products Ltd.
2. To inspect the documents containing the details of the visitors for period January 2004 to March 2006.”
4. The respondents admitted that investigation in this case has already been completed and all formalities
including final adjudication have been concluded. The respondents’ main objection to disclosure of the
documents requested by the appellant was that most of these were third-party documents which could not
be disclosed as these belonged to that party. It has been the experience of the Commission that very often
the Appellate Authorities err in deciding whether to disclose or not to disclose information provided to the
public authorities by third parties. Important thing to remember in all matters relating to third parties is,
that the third-party has every right to defend the confidentiality of the information provided by him to the respondents, but he has no right to veto their disclosure to an information-seeker
U/s 11(1), any third party objection is to be evaluated on merit for a decision on whether it was valid in terms of the provisions of RTI Act. The CPIO can and should overrule any such objection which cannot sustain itself when interrogated under the provisions of the RTI Act.
5. In the present case, even if considerable amount of information requested by the appellant pertained to the third-party, this entire information was part of an investigation, which has now been admittedly concluded. The only possible reason to withhold this information could be it attracting exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and, not any third-party objection.
6. Since, as admitted by the CPIO during the hearing, the investigation is now over, disclosure of all information involved in that investigation cannot now be said to be exempted under Section 8(1)(h).
7. It was posed to the CPIO whether he would have any objection to allowing the appellant to inspect the files connected with the range of information which the appellant has sought. He answered in the negative.
8. In consideration of the above, it is directed that the respondents, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, on a date and time fixed for the purpose, allow the appellant to inspect files and all connected documents corresponding to the queries the appellant had raised in his RTI-request. The appellant shall be allowed to take such copies and extracts, on payment of usual fee and further fee (cost), as may be admissible. The respondents are also directed, that should in their consideration parts of information would have been covered by the exemption u/s 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, such information may be withheld from disclosure applying the severability clause of Section 10(1) of RTI Act.
9. The appeal is disposed of with these directions.
Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH )
Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar
Address of parties:
1. Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, 128/947, Y Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur-208 0111.
2. Shri S.C. Jana, Commissioner of Central Excise & CPIO, Kanpur, 117/7, Sarvodya Nagar, Kanpur.
3. Shri Anil Bhatnagar, Chief Commissioner Customs & Central Excise & Appellate Authority, 7-A Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
No comments:
Post a Comment