Bimal Julka DECISION
Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
Facts:
1. The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points (A to C) regarding file number relating to amendments made in the Central Excise Act by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, copies of all note sheets of the file referred in point (A), inspection of all records, documents, note-sheets and files, etc.
2. The CPIO and US (CX-I), vide its letter dated 10.05.2016 stated that the queries pertained to the Finance Bill, 2016 which was placed during the Union Budget 2016. While relying on the decision of the Commission in Shri Amin Ali vs. Department of Revenue, File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00456 dated 03.01.2007, it was stated that all matters connected with the Budget and its approval were essentially parts of legislative process. While explaining the process of Budget formulation, it was stated that the RTI Act clearly recognised the need to preserve sensitive confidential information and that disclosure of Budget related information could affect the efficient functioning of the Government and could encourage litigation and disputes. Therefore, it would not be in the interest of the State to reveal information relating to Budgetary process which would be covered under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, exemption u/s. 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 was also claimed by the Respondent. Moreover, it was stated that the information sought related to Budget estimates of revenue which was published information and was also available on the website hence details were not covered under the definition of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 03.06.2016, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
3. The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. R.K. Jain;
Respondent: Mr. Shankar Sarma, US, CBEC;
4. The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and submitted that no satisfactory information was provided in the matter, till date. While referring to Point A of his RTI application, the Appellant submitted that information relating to file number could not be claimed to be confidential information under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. Explaining that none of his queries pertained to the Finance Bill, 2016 but related to the Amendments made in the Central Excise Act by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Act No. 05 of 1986), the Appellant submitted that the information was disclosable u/s. 8(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 since it related to an occurrence of an event or matter which had taken place, occurred or happened 20 years before the date on which the application was made u/s. 6 of the RTI Act, 2005. In his Second Appeal dated 06.07.2016 (Diarised on 08.07.2016), the Appellant submitted that the order of the FAA was illegal, incorrect, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and against the public policy and contrary to the factual aspects of the case hence liable to be set aside. It was submitted that the FAA had erred in deciding the Appeal ex parte without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Appellant which was in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the Appeal was dis........