← the bulletins

TIOL-DDT 310 · Friday, 24 February 2006 · story 2 of 3

Can a Superintendent of Central Excise ask for information from his Commissioner under RTI?

By Vijay Kumar

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II has passed an interesting order under the Right To Information Act. A Superintendent, Mr H. J. Mhatre in his application requested for the following information:-

  1. Commissioner Mumbai-II, Car Number used for Pick up and Drop-in from Residence to Office and vice versa from July 2005 to December 2005.

  2. All Cars’ details of Mumbai-II Commissioner from July 2005 to December 2005 (in use as of till date along with log entries for the said period)

  3. Which Senior Officers (by name and designation) are eligible for use of Cars for personal purpose like Pick up and Drop-in from residence to office.

  4. Which Office cars are installed with Air Conditioner, Stereo and other additional accessories and who/how the payment of the same is made and it’s cost thereof.

  5. The residential address of the Commissioner Mumbai-II from July 2005 to December 2005.

  6. What is the role of PRO? How many officers are posted in the section and their duties (By Name) including Superintendent, Inspector, Sepoy, Hamal.

  7. Does the PRO or his subordinate perform outside office duties? If yes, than how do they commute and details of the Travelling Allowance they have submitted from July 2005 to December 2005.

  8. How many Mumbai-II officers’ cabins are installed with Air conditioner along with their designation?

  9. Why/How the PRO office has been installed with Air conditioner along with Television and Cable connection and under which budget heading the bill has been paid (the bill details of Cable connection may please be provided from Jul 2005 to December 2005).

The officer was asking for explosive information which cannot be given as it will be too embarrassing. The Commissioner passed an excellent order denying the information.

Is the application entertainable? The Commissioner asked, “does the applicant, a Superintendent of Central Excise working in the Commissionerate of Central Excise, belong to “the governed” or “the governments and their instrumentalities”? He proceeded to answer it, “by no means can he be described as a member of “the governed” citizenry. Being a gazetted officer, he is very much a part of the government. In fact, he is one of the officers whose name has been published, as required under Sec.4(b)(ix) of the Act, in the Directory of Officers published in Trade Notice No.21/RTI Act/2005 dated 24.8.05 issued by the Mumbai-II Central Excise Commissionerate. Instead of seeking, he should have been supplying the information to “the governed” citizenry. Thus the only locus standi Sh. Mhatre has under the Act is that of a provider and not seeker of information.” So the Commissioner held that the Superintendent had no right to seek information under the RTI Act.

Why the information cannot be furnished. The Commissioner observed that “it may not be out of place to bring on record here that this Commissionerate of Central Excise generates about Rs.600 crores every month in central excise revenue; that the officers who collect, compile and communicate information, requested under the Act, do that job only part time; that their principal job continues to be collection of central excise revenue and enforcement of central excise laws; and that any additional work adds to their burden and can be undertaken by them at some cost to this precious government revenue. Extra burden coming from their own colleagues cannot be passed on to and borne by them, particularly when such colleagues are perfectly positioned and capable of making a little effort to satisfy their curiosity. This is an abuse of sacred right to information and cannot, therefore, be permitted”

The department is to furnish information not explanation. The Commissioner held that, “The RTI Act does not empower any applicant to seek explanation, i.e. reasons or justification for any action or inaction. Nor is the CPIO bound to furnish the same. The explanations sought for by Shri H. J. Mhatre in his applications are, therefore, even otherwise not due to him”

Was the information sought in Public Interest? The Commissioner held that the Superintendent was “so far enjoying the privileges of a gazetted officer. Now he wants to explore and exploit the right to information, which the citizenry has acquired after a long struggle. He wants to have the best of both the worlds. No, that is not public interest. That is a crass personal interest, which can’t be allowed to take precedence over the public interest.”

Finally the Commissioner gave a wonderful quotable quote in his order, “The RTI Act has opened a way to a newly discovered territory, where the ordinary citizens of India have been armed with a precious right to hold all Government functionaries accountable. It can’t be encroached by anyone else. It is off-limits to any one who is not a “citizen.” The RTI route is closed to joy riders”

The Commissioner’s order is simply superb for its language, but for the law? He does not want to confer the rights of a citizen on his staff. What would have been the position if the information had been asked for by the wife of the Superintendent? She is not a government employee; she is not a gazetted officer; her interest cannot be classified as crass personal one. In any case a citizen asking for information is not required to tell the Commissioner why he/she wants the information. What was the crass personal interest in asking for information about the office vehicles? Obviously the applicant was trying to prove a point – about an open secret in the department.

It is universally accepted that:-

1. Cars meant for preventive work are used for personal transport.

2. Many of the officers who are not eligible for pick up and drop from and to residence do use government vehicles for the purpose and coolly claim the transport allowance from the department without batting an eyelid. Even the very honest officers avail this facility.

3. Officers are not eligible to have AC for their cars but many government cars have unauthorized ACs fitted.

4. Many of the Commissioners do not have residential addresses and they stay in departmental guest houses.

5. There are many cabins fitted with ACs and TVs for which there is no official provision.

These uncomfortable questions were asked by the applicant and answers were refused because he is not a citizen. But citizens do have a right to get the information. Because the applicant was a departmental officer, the information was denied, but what will the department do if the same information is asked by somebody else?

The senior officers of the department richly deserve all these facilities, but as of now they are not legal.

See full text of the ORDER No.01/2006-(RTI) of Mumbai II Commissioner dated 19.1.2006 under RTI Counter in www.hrindiaonline.com