ORDER

1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o. the Asstt. Commissioner, GST & Excise, Division-I, Surat, seeking information regarding copies of CT-3 No. 45 to 53 with respect to M/s. Mubashira Silk Mills, etc.

2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the respondent, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act. Hearing:

3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Ashok Singh, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The complainant submitted their written submissions dated 12.02.2021 and the same has been taken on record. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 08.02.2021 and the same has been taken on record.

5. The complainant contended that the respondent has wrongly not provided him the information as sought in his RTI application dated 06.12.2018. The complainant further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner further reported that in this regard, a look out Notice dtd. 28.03.2019 was issued by the then Assistant Commissioner, CGST & C.Ex. Division-I, Surat to all Section Heads/ Sections of HQ., as well as to all the office working under CGST & C.Ex. Surat to make all out efforts to find out the file containing the copies of CT-3s bearing no. 01 to 54 in respect of M/s. Mubashra Silk Mills (100% E0U), issued during the period 2001. Here, the Deputy Commissioner has deliberately avoided to mention about the outcome of the lookout Notice dated 28.03.2019. It cannot be believed that no reply in connection with the Lookout Notice has been received either from Section Head/Sections of HQ especially when the vigilance matter is pending in this case and when demand against the show cause notice is confirmed based on the said documents and when the recovery of Government dues is in process. Therefore the said reply of the Deputy Commissioner is baseless.

6. The respondent submitted that they have informed the complainant that “on scrutiny of the said file of M/s. Mubashira Silk Mills( IOO!7o EOU), it is found that the desired copies of CT-3 bearing No. 45 to 53 during the period 2001 are not available in the file. Hence, this office is not in a position to provide the same”.

Decision:

7. This Commission is not adjudicating on furnishing the information to the complainant and therefore, the legal issue to be decided herein is whether there is any malafide of the CPIO which attracts penal action u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The complainant has expressed that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent. To this, the respondent categorically submitted that the desired copies of CT-3 bearing No. 45 to 53 during the period 2001 are not available in the file. Hence, their office is not in a position to provide the same.

8. The Commission observed that the respondent has informed the factual position in the matter to the complainant on his RTI application within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

9. While examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. inCivil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-

“30. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Inform