The Central Information Commission (CIC) has upheld the denial of information under RTI application regarding gun imports filed by one Mr. David John against the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
The appellant-applicant sought for the copy of the full file regarding this gun import (including, a copy of invoice, ballastic test done if any, duty charged etc. The Appellant stated that he does not contest that the information sought for is hit by Section 8(1)(j) but urged that disclosure of the same is in the larger public interest.
While dismissing the application, the CPIO observed that “neither any material that would substantiate his claim that the weapon involved in the crime was the one imported in the said consignment nor the details about the Crime No cited is brought on record either before the original authority or in appeal. Clearances of imported goods through Post or otherwise is part of an assessment process which would examine the nature and value of the goods. Assessment is thus a process relating to the person importing the goods. All information connected therewith therefore is private information received by the department in a fiduciary capacity and the same cannot be divulged unless a larger public interest is objectively brought out.”
Section 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act 2005 which reads, “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”.
Denying the application, Information Commissioner Saroj Punhani “Clearly, the consignment in question was neither imported and nor cleared by the appellant. Therefore, Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005, which excludes the disclosure of personal information finds, a proper application in the present case.”
Dismissing the application, the Commission further held that “The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the FAA had adequately justified the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the CPIO has also discharged the onus of justifying the denial of the information as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act. Further, the Commission is unable to comprehend the aspect of larger public interest being argued in the matter by the Appellant and is not inclined to intervene with the reply of the CPIO.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
