RTI application was filed by Shri Shankar Khalid, Director for Shivani Flexipack Ltd - CIC: There is nothing on record to show that the RTI and second appeal was filed by a ‘citizen’ as per Sec 3 of the RTI Act; RTI application/appeal is not tenable
RTI application was filed by Shri Shankar Khalid, Director for Shivani Flexipack Ltd - CIC: There is nothing on record which shows that the RTI and second appeal has been filed by a ‘citizen’ as per Section 3 of the RTI Act; The appellant is a company but not an individual and therefore, the RTI application/appeal is not tenable as per Section 3 of the RTI Act
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central GST, Kolhapur, seeking information on two points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Certified copies of E.R.1s electronically filed by them for the period July 2010 to October 2011;
(ii) Copy of monthly statements for the period July 2010 to October 2011 submitted by the Range Office to Division Office to Commissionerate office in respect of Production, Clearances, Taxable Value and Duty paid by them, etc.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 25.07.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The FAA responded on 04.09.2018. The appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
3. This Commission on the basis of the perusal of the facts on record observed that the RTI application has been filed by one Shri Shankar Khalid, Director for Shivani Flexipack Ltd. Further, the first appeal and the second appeal were filed in the name of Shivani Flexipack Ltd. There is nothing on record which shows that the RTI and second appeal has been filed by a ‘citizen’ as per Section 3 of the RTI Act and by the applicant. The Commission is of the view that a citizen has only a right to obtain information from a public authority under the RTI Act and file second appeal. Information should have been sought by the same citizen in his individual capacity at the time of appeal. In the present case, the appellant has nowhere mentioned that he/she has sought information in his/her individual capacity but as legal entity. The appellant has also not proved his/her identity or given any of his identity proof to show that he/she was seeking information in second appeal in his/her individual capacity. The Commission is of the view that the appellant is a company but not an individual. Therefore, the RTI application/appeal of the appellant is not tenable as per Section 3 of the RTI Act.
4. Accordingly, the Commission treats the instant appeal as devoid of merits.
5. Hence, the instant appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
6. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Citation: Shivani Flexipack Ltd. v. CPIO, O/o. The Assistant Commissioner Central GST, Division-I, Satara in Second Appeal No. CIC/CCSTM/A/2019/104058, Date of Decision: 27.01.2021