Central Excise Superintendent takes on Hyundai - thru RTI with CIC
Mr. Samuel C. Wilson is a Superintendent of Central Excise, working in Chennai. He says that he came to know that M/s.Hyundai Motor India Limited, Sriperumbudur during July 2004 to June 2006 had "drained the country's resources and several hundred Crores of Revenue. He took up this matter for investigation, "but all his efforts were stonewalled by the unit." He alleges that he "was taken to task for attempting to investigate." He, thereafter, filed a detailed letter before the Prime Minister with copies to the Finance Minister and the Chairman, CBEC, all dated 29.7.2006. He claims that no action followed.
On 16.10.2006, the appellant received a letter dated 10.10.2006 from CBEC "asking me to meet the local Chief Commissioner with all the details and assist him in the enquiry." He says that when he tried to meet the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, "he was rebuffed by the local Chief Commissioner." Thereafter, he informed this matter to the Finance Minister through his communication dated 20.10.2006. He filed his RTI-application before the CPIO, Prime Minister's Office (PMO) on 3.2.2007 requesting information on action taken on his report dated 29.7.2006 addressed to the Prime Minister. He received a reply dated 5.3.2007 from the CPIO, PMO, Shri Kamal Dayani, that the report received at the PMO "got mixed up with papers" and could not be located. The CPIO promised to take up the matter further with the Department of Revenue on the basis of the copy of the original petition enclosed with the appellant's RTI-petition. The appellant's RTI-petition was forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Revenue by the CPIO, PMO after 23 days "contrary to the provisions of section 6(3)". The appellant received no reply from the Secretary, Department of Revenue "even after a lapse of 50 days", which amounted to refusal of information as per Section 7(2). Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority (AA), PMO.
He received a communication from Smt. Hemambika R. Priya. CPIO, CBEC, dated 12.4.2007, informing him that the contents of the appellant's petition were already examined and a reply was sent to him. He alleges that he had received no reply whatsoever. He thereafter wrote back to the CPIO, Smt.Hemambika R. Priya requesting to send him a copy of the reply said to have been sent to the appellant earlier. On 30.4.2007, the appellant received an order from the AA, PMO, communicated by Mr.Javed Usmai, CAPIO, PMO, which stated that no further action was called for on his appeal, which was being closed.
Then he filed an appeal before the CPIO, CBEC, Shri Sushil Solanki. He received a communication from Smt.Hemambika R. Priya, CPIO, CBEC on 7.5.2007.
He has now approached the CIC with the complaint that he was being 'deceived' by the CPIO and the AA of the CBEC by giving to him vague and unrelated replies. The information requested by him is "Action taken on my report dt. 29.7.06 addressed to the Prime Minister and its present status. If closed, the basis on which the same has been closed and details of the same, along with file notings."
The Commission observed,
++ A perusal of the records before me shows that the AA had very clearly informed the appellant that his petition about loss hundreds of crores of revenue to the State because of the action of the M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd. was examined and the conclusion of the Department was "that the views taken by the appellant are not as per the provisions of law".
++ The respondent-CPIO present during the hearing explained that the Department's conclusion was that after examining the communication of the appellant regarding the Hyundai Motor India Limited, it was not considered worth pursuing. And that is the information they have for the appellant.
++ It is quite obvious that the appellant is interested in the Department pursuing action on his complaints against Hyundai Motor India Limited. The Department of Revenue is unwilling to do so, on the basis of the investigation they have carried out and they have informed the same to the appellant.
++ This Commission does not consider it necessary to examine whether or not the public authority is right in coming to the conclusion which they had as regards the appellant's complaint dated 29.7.2006. The requirement of the RTI Act is satisfied once the status report of action is communicated to the appellant. That having been done, the appellant is left with no ground to challenge the action.
++ The respondents also pointed out that the copy of the note-sheets connected with the RTI-application of the appellant has already been provided to him.
++ In the Commission's judgement, this fully meets the disclosure requirement. The appeal fails.
CIC Order No. F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00849