2020 (6) TMI 58 - Commission - Central Excise

CIC Orders Reassessment of RTI Request, Stresses CPIO's Duty for Timely and Effective Information Sharing.

Mr. Nadie Marghoob Jauhri Versus CPIO Asst. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Mumbai Central, Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, GST

The CIC concluded the appeal by directing the Respondent to reassess the matter and furnish a comprehensive response to the Appellant within a specified ... Adjudication on the SCNs issued against him - issuance of OIO was not clearly and cogently explained by the Respondent - HELD THAT:- The Commission at the outset observed that the CPIO/ FAA did not 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 [2011 (8) TMI 1333 - DELHI HIGH COURT] clearly stated that the PIO acts as the Pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The Commission also observed that as per the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in an Appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO. Neither the Respondent present during the hearing nor the CPIO responding to the RTI application, could justify their position as to how the disclosure of information would be in contravention to any of the provisions enshrined under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission instructs the Respondent to re-examine the matter and provide a clear, cogent and precise point wise response to the Appellant explaining the updated factual status in the matter within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order - Appeal disposed off. Issues involved:Failure to provide satisfactory response to RTI application; Justification for denial of information under RTI Act; Duties and responsibilities of CPIO under RTI Act; Compliance with provisions of RTI Act by CPIO; Providing assistance to RTI applicants.Analysis:1. Failure to provide satisfactory response to RTI application:The Appellant raised concerns regarding the lack of clarity in the response provided by the Respondent regarding the status of SCNs issued against him and the issuance of OIO. The Commission observed that the CPIO/ FAA did not provide a satisfactory response to the Appellant, emphasizing the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent, and precise responses to information seekers as per the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission referred to various judgments highlighting the pivotal role of the PIO in enforcing the implementation of the Act and the onus on the CPIO to justify any denial of information under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.2. Justification for denial of information under RTI Act:The Commission emphasized that to deny information under exemptions mentioned in Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, the Respondent must provide justification or establish reasons for claiming such exemptions. Reference was made to a judgment where it was held that a specific clause under Section 8 (1) must be cited to deny information. The onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified was placed on the CPIO during appeal proceedings as per Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005.3. Duties and responsibilities of CPIO under RTI Act:The Commission highlighted the obligations of CPIOs to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act and to provide maximum assistance to RTI applicants for the flow of information. Various judgments were cited to underscore the responsibility of CPIOs in supplying information and the consequences of default or dereliction in their duties. The Commission instructed the Respondent to re-examine the matter and provide a clear, cogent, and precise response to the Appellant within a specified timeframe.4. Compliance with provisions of RTI Act by CPIO:The Commission stressed the need for CPIOs to apply their minds, analyze the material before them, and either disclose the information sought or provide grounds for non-disclosure. It was noted that the CPIO failed to justify their position on how the disclosure of information would contravene any provisions under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission directed the Respondent to convene conferences/seminars to sensitize officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act for effective discharge of duties.5. Providing assistance to RTI applicants:The Commission referred to an Office Memorandum emphasizing the responsibility of public authorities and PIOs to not only furnish information but also provide necessary help to information seekers. The directive was given to the Respondent Public Authority to ensure the provision of maximum assistance to RTI applicants as required under the RTI Act, 2005.In conclusion, the Commission disposed of the appeal by instructing the Respondent to re-examine the matter and provide a detailed response to the Appellant within a specified timeframe, while also emphasizing the need for compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act and the duties of CPIOs in facilitating the flow of information to RTI applicants.