RTI Act – Central Excise Superintendent denied information

By Vijay Kumar

In DDT 310 - 24 02 2006, we had brought to you a case where 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).

And the information was promptly denied. The Superintendent has gone in appeal to the CIC and the CIC also denied him the information on the grounds that:-

++ The appellant being an official from within the organization is part of the process of creation and generation of information, which are in his possession.

++ He has also not indicated any bonafide public interest in seeking the information.

++ In view of his dubious credentials as reported to the Commission, which is indeed the matter of evidence, and frivolous nature of information sought, he is undoubtedly seeking information for promotion of personal interest rather than public.

++ A lot of precious resources of the office has been deployed and wasted for furnishing information to him. One is not sure what good use he would make of it.

In DDT 310, we had mentioned, “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?”

What would have been the CIC’s decision if the information had been asked by the wife of the Superintendent?

Our babus have decided that no information is to be passed on to the citizen, whose servants they are. Will they tame the CIC?

Decision No.118/IC(A)/2006 in F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00221- Dated, the 14th July 2006