TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding hearing dated 21-3-2012 of Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/002042 by CIC. 3. The Reply given to the appellant is as under : The request of the applicant has been carefully examined. It has been observed that the ten rupee Indian Postal Order No. 11F067916, dated 23-4-2013 attached with the said RTI application, has not been made payable to anyone. The required fee, therefore, has not been properly paid. The application, therefore, stands rejected and the postal Order is returned. The Postal Order should be drawn in favour of Chief Accounts Officer, Office of Commissioner of Customs (I), JNCH. In this regard, please find enclosed copy of decision in Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/002042, dated 10-1-2013 for your kind information. Grounds of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to appreciate that the appellant has not tendered any blank postal order as the said postal order contained the Rubber Stamp with Name and address on the said postal order. Therefore, it was useable only for Appellant. Therefore, the order of the CPIO is incorrect and illegal and liable to be set aside and the CPIO be directed to provide the information in time bound frame. (6) That as per Section 6 read with Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is required to transfer the RTI Application or issue Third Party Notice within 5 days of the receipt of the Application. Therefore, the CPIO has to process the application within 5 days of its receipt. But in the present case, the CPIO rejected the application of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause payments are accepted only in a name different than Accounts Officer of the Public Authority. The CIC itself is an example where the fees is payable not in favour of CIC but in favour of CAT. The CIC in its order dated 10-1-2013 has advised for paying the fees in favour of "Accounts Officer, J&CH, Nhava Sheva" whereas the impugned order in relation to same public authority and CPIO has directed payment in favour of "Chief Accounts Officer, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (I), JNCH. Therefore, there is a confusion about the name in which the Postal Order is to be sent and the Appellant has rightly authorized the CPIO to fill-in the Name in which the Postal Order is payable. Therefore, the order of the CPIO is incorrect and illega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, when the Appellant has tendered a valid Postal order of Rs. 10/- duly rubber stamped with his name and address. (14) That the ld. CPIO has erred in not providing the information to the appellant though as per the provisions of the RTI Act, the appellant is entitled to information as sought by him. Therefore, the order of the CPIO is incorrect and illegal and liable to be set aside and the CPIO be directed to provide the information in time-bound frame. (15) That the information sought is neither voluminous nor relate to older and larger period, thus could have easily been provided by the CPIO. (16) That the appellant is citizen of India and fulfilled all other requirements of the RTI Act and the Rules made thereunder and is entitled t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sought by the appellant is regarding providing copies of all note sheets relating to his RTI application dated 14-4-2011 and note sheets regarding hearing dated 21-3-2012 of Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/ 002042 by CIC. 8. I find that the CPIO has rejected the application on the grounds that the ten Rupee IPO No. 11F 067916, dated 23-4-2013 attached with the RTI application, has not been made payable to anyone. The required fee, therefore, has not been properly paid. The appellant in the grounds of appeal contended that in Para 6 of his application specifically requested the CPIO to fill in the name in which the Postal Order is payable. Further, the appellant has stated that the CPIO has erred in not appreciating that he has tendered a val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the appellant. Since the CPIO in his order has stated that the IPO is returned herewith, I do not find any reason that the CPIO will keep the IPO instead of returning. 11. I find that the main issue in this case is regarding non-payment of requisite fee under the RTI Act, 2005. I find that the appellant along with his letter dated 25-6-2013 has enclosed a copy of decision of the CIC in the case of R.K. Jain v. Department of Revenue vide No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001918, dated 15-4-2013. In above decision CIC held that "...As to the contention of the Appellant that the postal order could have been completed/filled in by the CPIO with regards to the details of the Public Authority, the First Appellate Authority held that 'keeping in vie....