Commission orders disclosure of complaints against inspection agencies since 2006, emphasizes public access to action details

The Commission directed the CPIO to provide information on complaints against inspection agencies since 2006 and their current status. It disagreed with the denial of information on actions taken against certain agencies, stating such details should be public post-investigation. The Commission emphasized the need for detailed reasoning in the first appellate authority's orders and instructed compliance within two weeks, ultimately disposing of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of information under RTI application.
2. Availability of information regarding actions taken against specific agencies.
3. Responsibility for approving inspection agencies.
4. Disclosure of complaints against inspection agencies.
5. Adequacy of reasoning in the order of the first appellate authority.

---

The judgment addresses the RTI application filed by the Appellant seeking information on actions taken against pre-shipment agencies as recommended by the Customs Excise Appellate Tribunal. The CPIO provided a pointwise response, which was upheld by the first appellate authority. The Commissioner decided to examine the reply concerning specific points contested by the Appellant. The Appellant's requests for information regarding actions taken against certain agencies were denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, citing third-party information. The Commission disagreed with this denial, stating that information on actions taken should be in the public domain post-investigation. However, premature disclosure of pending investigation details could affect the process. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide information on complaints against inspection agencies since 2006 and their current status.

Regarding the responsibility for approving inspection agencies, the CPIO claimed the information was not available, but the Commission disagreed, stating that such information should be part of the public authority's records. The CPIO was directed to provide this information. The Commission also ordered the disclosure of complaints against inspection agencies since January 2006 and their current status. The Appellant raised concerns about the first appellate authority's order lacking reasoning and the denial of a personal hearing. The Commissioner emphasized that the first appellate authority must pass a detailed order with reasoning. The Commission instructed compliance with its directions within two weeks, leading to the disposal of the appeal.

---