Bimal Julka DECISION
Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
FACTS:
1. The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the date of payment and cheque number with amount against each bill submitted by the Transport Operator in Col. 6 and 7 of the detail of bills submitted by the Transport Operator as per the Annexure "A" annexed with the RTI application and issues related thereto.
2. The CPIO/Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, vide its letter dated 29.07.2016 denied disclosure of information as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA and Pr. CIT, Gwalior, vide its order dated 06.09.2016, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. K.K. Garg through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Puneet Sehgal, Inspector through VC;
3. The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the details sought by him had not been provided despite specific provision under the RTI Act, 2005 for proactive disclosures in such matters. It was alleged that there was a large scale corruption in the Public Authority Office as a result of which such details were intentionally, deliberately and mala fidely withheld by the Respondent. It was further argued that payment details of Transport Operator were public records not exempted from disclosure. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated that no larger public interest was established by the Appellant and therefore the information could not be disclosed. On being queried by the Commission for invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, no satisfactory reply was given. Drawing attention of the Respondent on the preamble of the Act "requiring an informed citizenry and transparency of information vital to its functioning and to contain corruption and to hold government and instrumentalities accountable to be governed", it was agreed by the Respondent that they had nothing to hide and that the details could be placed in the Public Domain.
4. In his written submission dated 27.11.2017, the Appellant while re-iterating the contents of the RTI application stated that he had sought generic information of statistical nature regarding date of payment and cheque number with amount against each bill submitted by the Transport Operator and to furnish the information in accordance with the guidelines issued by the DoP & T vide circular dated 17.03.2015. While referring to the reply of the CPIO, it was stated that it was not clear as to how he concluded that Section 8(1)(j) of the Act was applicable in his case. Merely citing the exemption u/s. 8(1)(j) would not absolve the Public Authority from discharging its onus as required to claim such exemption and reply on Point 2.2 was furnished in rustic manner against the guidelines furnished by the DoP & T. It was also stated that the FAA had concurred with the response of the CPIO claiming a blanket exemption u/s. 8(1)(j) without providing any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant to adduce evidence in support of his claim. While stating that the FAA had not acted as Appellate Authority but as a senior officer, the Appellant referred to guidelines of the DoP & T in O.M. No. 1/3/2008-IR dated 25.04.2008 and several decisions of the Commission. The FAA had also not complied with section