2009 (9) TMI 703 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Appellate authority orders CPIO to re-examine 335J register, provide non-exempt info, and disclose pending/adjudicated cases.

RK. JAIN Versus CPIO, CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

The appellate authority directed the CPIO to re-examine the 335J register, provide non-exempt information within 10 days using the doctrine of ... Right to Information - Adjudication proceedings Issues Involved:1. Denial of information under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(g), and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.2. Examination of the applicability of exemptions claimed by the CPIO.3. Application of Section 10 of the RTI Act regarding partial disclosure.4. Justification for denial of information related to cases pending adjudication and adjudicated cases.5. Request for penalty imposition on the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Information under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(g), and 8(1)(h):The appellant requested copies of the 335J register, a list of cases pending adjudication, and a list of adjudicated cases. The CPIO denied the information citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(g), and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant contested this denial, arguing that the information sought does not fall within these exemptions and that the CPIO did not provide a proper justification for the denial.2. Examination of the Applicability of Exemptions Claimed by the CPIO:The CPIO argued that disclosing the 335J register would endanger the life or physical safety of officers involved in gathering information and impede ongoing investigations. The appellant countered that the information sought does not harm the competitive position of any third party or endanger anyone's safety. The appellate authority found that the CPIO failed to show reasonable grounds for claiming these exemptions and that the mere entries in the 335J register do not necessarily prove the culpability of the offenders.3. Application of Section 10 of the RTI Act Regarding Partial Disclosure:Section 10(1) of the RTI Act allows for partial disclosure of information if only part of the record is exempt. The appellate authority directed the CPIO to examine the 335J register afresh and apply the doctrine of severability, providing information that does not impede the investigation process. The CPIO was instructed to furnish the information within 10 days of receipt of the decision.4. Justification for Denial of Information Related to Cases Pending Adjudication and Adjudicated Cases:The CPIO denied information on the grounds that it would harm the competitive position of third parties and impede investigations. The appellate authority found this reasoning insufficient, noting that the appellant only sought details about cases pending adjudication and adjudicated cases, which do not fall under the claimed exemptions. The CPIO was directed to furnish this information within 10 days.5. Request for Penalty Imposition on the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act:The appellant sought penalties against the CPIO for mala fide denial of information. The appellate authority clarified that only the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has the power to impose penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The appellate authority found no deliberate intention by the CPIO to deny the information and thus did not justify the imposition of penalties.Conclusion:The appeal was disposed of with the following directions:- The CPIO is to re-examine the 335J register and provide non-exempt information within 10 days, applying the doctrine of severability.- The CPIO is to furnish the requested information about cases pending adjudication and adjudicated cases within 10 days.- The request for penalty imposition on the CPIO was denied as the appellate authority is not vested with such powers, and no mala fide intention was found.