2007 (7) TMI 421 - Commission - Central Excise

Commission orders public authority to disclose information under Right to Information Act, 2005

The Commission found that certain information requested by the appellant fell under the definition of 'information' as per the Right to Information Act, ... Right to information - What directions, if any, the Commission can issue in regard to information about dues, inspection etc - The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority - If the public authority does not hold information or the information cannot be accessed by it under Section 2(f) or if the information is non-est, the public authority cannot provide the same under the Act - The definition also makes it clear that the Right to Information includes the right to inspection of work, documents or records or taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records or taking certified samples of material or obtaining information through some electronic device - It is true that it is not the duty of the CPIO to cause an enquiry or undertake an investigation or prepare answers to the questions posed by the appellant It is, however, a matter of concern that the Appellate Authority instead of dealing with the matter properly has mechanically decided the matter without making any proper analysis of the issues involved - The Commission trusts and believes that the 1st Appellate Authority would sincerely discharge his statutory obligations under the Right to Information Act so that the right to information guaranteed to the citizens is facilitated properly - Appeal is disposed of Issues Involved:1. Whether the 'information' asked for by the appellant can be treated as 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) read with Section 2(j) of the RTI Act and therefore accessible under Section 2(j) of the RTI ActRs.2. Whether there has been any denial of information by the respondent public authority in this caseRs.3. What directions, if any, the Commission can issueRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue I: Definition and Accessibility of InformationThe core issue was whether the information requested by the appellant falls under the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) read with Section 2(j) of the RTI Act. The Right to Information Act, 2005, aims to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities. Section 2(f) defines 'information' as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form, and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law. Section 2(j) elaborates that the right to information includes inspection of work, documents, records, taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records, taking certified samples of material, and obtaining information through electronic devices.The Commission noted that the RTI Act does not obligate public authorities to create information or answer hypothetical questions. The appellant's request at point (a) was addressed by the CPIO, but points (b) to (h) were initially rejected on the grounds that they did not constitute 'information' as defined by the Act. However, the Commission found that some of these points, particularly point (b), involved factual information that should be provided if available. The CPIO must respond to whether inspections occurred and provide related information if it exists.Issue II: Denial of InformationThe Commission examined whether there was any denial of information by the respondent public authority. The CPIO had provided information regarding excise dues but denied other information on the grounds that it did not fall under the RTI Act's definition. The appellant argued that the information requested was factual and accessible by the public authority. The Commission agreed that certain requests, such as details of inspections, litigation, and actions taken for recovery of dues, were factual and should be addressed by the public authority if the information existed.Issue III: Directions by the CommissionThe Commission directed the CPIO to provide the available information to the appellant within 15 days. If the information was not available or held by the public authority, the CPIO was to state this explicitly. If the information was held by another public authority, action under Section 6(3) would be taken. For information relating to a third party, the procedure under Section 11 was to be followed.Conclusion:The Commission emphasized the importance of the Right to Information Act in promoting transparency and accountability. It highlighted the obligation of public authorities to provide access to information unless exempted under Sections 8 or 9 of the Act. The Commission criticized the 1st Appellate Authority for not adequately addressing the issues and directed the CPIO to provide the requested information or explicitly state its non-availability. The Commission's decision aimed to ensure that the appellant's right to information was facilitated properly.