Right to Information Wiki

The working reference for India's Right to Information Act, 2005.

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: RTI Wiki — The working reference for the Right to Information Act, 2005 » Case law library — landmark decisions on the Right to Information Act, 2005 » Commission Decisions — the CIC line of case law » Shri Ketan Kantilal Modi vs Central Board Of Excise & Customs
important-decisions:cic-case-laws:shri-ketan-kantilal-modi-vs-central-board-of-excise-customs
Translate:

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
important-decisions:cic-case-laws:shri-ketan-kantilal-modi-vs-central-board-of-excise-customs [2014/07/22 14:25] – Shrawanimportant-decisions:cic-case-laws:shri-ketan-kantilal-modi-vs-central-board-of-excise-customs [2026/04/20 01:46] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Shri Ketan Kantilal Modi vs Central Board Of Excise & Customs ====== ====== Shri Ketan Kantilal Modi vs Central Board Of Excise & Customs ======
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 95%>
 +**In plain English**
 +
 +An applicant filed one Right to Information application before the Central Board of Excise and Customs seeking information that was actually held across a large number of field offices across the country. The question before the Full Bench of the Central Information Commission was this: when a single application seeks information that is scattered across many public authorities, what is the obligation on the receiving Public Information Officer under Sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the Right to Information Act?
 +
 +The Full Bench held the following. Section 6(1) requires an applicant to file the application before the "concerned" public authority, which is the authority that holds the information or is most proximately connected to it. Section 6(3) allows the Public Information Officer to transfer an application where the subject matter is more closely connected to another authority. The transfer provision is not a substitute for the applicant's duty to identify the right authority. Where the information is genuinely held across many public authorities, the applicant is expected to file separate applications before each. Section 7(9) on the form in which information is to be supplied does not change this position.
 +
 +**What it means for you.** File your application with the public authority that actually holds the record. If you do not know the exact office, file with the nearest senior office and request transfer under Section 6(3). Do not file one omnibus application seeking information that is scattered across many departments or field formations and expect automatic aggregation.
 +
 +**Current status.** A leading Full Bench decision of the Central Information Commission on Sections 6(1) and 6(3) and the meaning of the "concerned public authority".
 +</WRAP>
 +
  
 on 22 September, 2009 on 22 September, 2009
Line 107: Line 120:
 Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application."  Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application." 
  
-14. DoPT's take on the contents of the two Sections, as stated in their O.M. of 12.06.2008, was:-+14. %%DoPT%%'s take on the contents of the two Sections, as stated in their O.M. of 12.06.2008, was:-
  
 "A careful reading of the provisions of sub-section (1) sub-section (3) of Section 6, suggests that the Act requires an information seeker to address the application to the PIO of the 'concerned public authority'. However, there may be cases in which a person of ordinary prudence may believe that the piece of information sought by him / her would be available with the public authority to which he / she has addressed the application, but is actually held by some another public authority. In such cases, the applicant makes a bonafide mistake of addressing the application to the PIO of a wrong public authority. On the other hand where an applicant addresses the application to the PIO of a public authority, which to a person of ordinary prudence, would not appear to be the concern of that public authority, the applicant does not fulfil his responsibility of addressing the application to the 'concerned public authority'." "A careful reading of the provisions of sub-section (1) sub-section (3) of Section 6, suggests that the Act requires an information seeker to address the application to the PIO of the 'concerned public authority'. However, there may be cases in which a person of ordinary prudence may believe that the piece of information sought by him / her would be available with the public authority to which he / she has addressed the application, but is actually held by some another public authority. In such cases, the applicant makes a bonafide mistake of addressing the application to the PIO of a wrong public authority. On the other hand where an applicant addresses the application to the PIO of a public authority, which to a person of ordinary prudence, would not appear to be the concern of that public authority, the applicant does not fulfil his responsibility of addressing the application to the 'concerned public authority'."
Line 209: Line 222:
 iii. Ms.Ashima Bansal, the CPIO, CBEC be directed to e-mail me the e-mail ids of all the subordinate office to whom such transfer through Internet is made facilitating my direct interaction with them in case of disputes. iii. Ms.Ashima Bansal, the CPIO, CBEC be directed to e-mail me the e-mail ids of all the subordinate office to whom such transfer through Internet is made facilitating my direct interaction with them in case of disputes.
  
-iv. Ms.Ashima Bansal, the CPIO, CBEC be directed to furnish me all the information/s including records pertaining directly to her office sought by me forthwith. v. Mr.K.G. Verma, Director, DoPT be directed to quash / set aside / delete / suitably amend circular No.10/2/2008-IR dated July 12, 2008.+iv. Ms.Ashima Bansal, the CPIO, CBEC be directed to furnish me all the information/s including records pertaining directly to her office sought by me forthwith. v. Mr.K.G. Verma, Director, %%DoPT%% be directed to quash / set aside / delete / suitably amend circular No.10/2/2008-IR dated July 12, 2008.
  
-vi. In case of any resistance to my above prayer from DoPT, the matter may be examined on merit by the full bench of the Hon'ble CIC.+vi. In case of any resistance to my above prayer from %%DoPT%%, the matter may be examined on merit by the full bench of the Hon'ble CIC.
  
 vii. Mr.Sanjeev Srivastava, Director, CBEC-CX-4's Order in First Appeal vide Dy.No.57/2008/CX-4 dated September 4, 2008 be quashed / set aside forthwith. vii. Mr.Sanjeev Srivastava, Director, CBEC-CX-4's Order in First Appeal vide Dy.No.57/2008/CX-4 dated September 4, 2008 be quashed / set aside forthwith.
  
-viii. Ms.Ashima Bansal, the CPIO, CBEC be subjected to penal provision u/s 20 of the Act for withholding information/s of vital public interest besides not adhering to provisions of the Act which was a mandatory obligation conferred on her with malafide intentions, without application of mind, in gross violation of the section 6 of the Act, illegally, and shielding gross illegalities prevailing in the subordinate offices under her besides spiking my efforts in obtaining / sharing information of vital public interest. ix. Mr.K.G. Verma, Director, DoPT and the author of the circular No.10/2/2008-IR be subjected to penal provision u/s 20 for deliberately misguiding the subordinate public authorities by issuing circulars / directives in the guise of "its own views" malafide intentions, without application of mind, an illegal and unauthorized attempt to dilute the provisions of a statute.+viii. Ms.Ashima Bansal, the CPIO, CBEC be subjected to penal provision u/s 20 of the Act for withholding information/s of vital public interest besides not adhering to provisions of the Act which was a mandatory obligation conferred on her with malafide intentions, without application of mind, in gross violation of the section 6 of the Act, illegally, and shielding gross illegalities prevailing in the subordinate offices under her besides spiking my efforts in obtaining / sharing information of vital public interest. ix. Mr.K.G. Verma, Director, %%DoPT%% and the author of the circular No.10/2/2008-IR be subjected to penal provision u/s 20 for deliberately misguiding the subordinate public authorities by issuing circulars / directives in the guise of "its own views" malafide intentions, without application of mind, an illegal and unauthorized attempt to dilute the provisions of a statute.
  
 x. Mr.Sanjeev Srivastava, the AA, CBEC-CX-4 be subjected to penal provisions u/s 20 for deliberately not passing a speaking order and wrongfully, deliberately, malafide intentions, without application of mind, in gross violation of the section 6 of the Act, illegally, only in order to concur with the CPIO, and illegalities prevailing in the subordinate offices under him besides spiking my efforts in obtaining / sharing information of vital public interest and deliberately passing an illegal order not in conformity with the Act. x. Mr.Sanjeev Srivastava, the AA, CBEC-CX-4 be subjected to penal provisions u/s 20 for deliberately not passing a speaking order and wrongfully, deliberately, malafide intentions, without application of mind, in gross violation of the section 6 of the Act, illegally, only in order to concur with the CPIO, and illegalities prevailing in the subordinate offices under him besides spiking my efforts in obtaining / sharing information of vital public interest and deliberately passing an illegal order not in conformity with the Act.
Line 235: Line 248:
 e) Transfer of application by the CPIO in terms of Section 6(3) in case if she deems it fit that the information/s sought are controlled by offices of public authorities subordinate to her office. e) Transfer of application by the CPIO in terms of Section 6(3) in case if she deems it fit that the information/s sought are controlled by offices of public authorities subordinate to her office.
  
-f) Deletion of DoPT's Circular No.10/2/2006-IR dated June 12, 2008. Alternatively direct the DoPT to suitably amend the circular with modification clarifying that the contents of the said circular are merely DoPT's views and not binding directive on any one.+f) Deletion of %%DoPT%%'s Circular No.10/2/2006-IR dated June 12, 2008. Alternatively direct the %%DoPT%% to suitably amend the circular with modification clarifying that the contents of the said circular are merely %%DoPT%%'s views and not binding directive on any one.
  
 g) Penal action against the CPIO/First Appellate authority as well as Mr.K.G. Verma, author and Director of the Circular No.10/2/2006-IR dated June 12, 2008." g) Penal action against the CPIO/First Appellate authority as well as Mr.K.G. Verma, author and Director of the Circular No.10/2/2006-IR dated June 12, 2008."
Line 314: Line 327:
  
 Asst. Registrar Asst. Registrar
 +
 +
 +===== Related =====
 +
 +  * [[important-decisions:cic-case-laws:advocates-rti|Appearance of Advocate /Non Advocate in the hearing]].
 +  * [[important-decisions:cic-case-laws:format-rti-cpio|Format for giving information to the applicants]].
 +  * [[important-decisions:cic-case-laws:ministers-under-rti|Ministers Under RTI]].
 +  * [[important-decisions:cic-case-laws|Commission Decisions]].
 +  * [[important-decisions:court:irrelevant-information|RTI can’t be Denied on the Ground that Information sought is Irrelevant]].
 +
 +{{tag>rti case-law cic}}
 +
Was this page helpful?
important-decisions/cic-case-laws/shri-ketan-kantilal-modi-vs-central-board-of-excise-customs.txt · Last modified: by 127.0.0.1