DEEP CHAND Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the order dtd. 6/2/2024, passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, R.T.I., Customs Commissionerate, Indore, whereby, the petitioner's application to obtain the documents pertaining to the show cause notice dtd. 3/1/2023, has been rejected.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that initially the aforesaid show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for confiscation of the gold, in which, a reply was filed by the petitioner, and subsequently the final order was passed on 28/7/2023, whereby, the gold was confiscated and the other penalties were also imposed on the petitioner. Apparently, the petitioner wanted to file an appeal against the aforesaid order however, as he had some differences with his counsel who had appeared for him in the Department, he could not obtain the File from the said counsel, and thus, the petitioner sent a letter on 29/11/2023, to the Assistant, RTI, Commissioner of Customs Commissionerate, seeking the documents of his case for filing a statutory appeal under the Customs Act, 1962. However, no reply to the said letter was sent by the respondents hence, an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the RTI Act") was also filed by the petitioner on 20/2/2024, seeking the requisite documents. However, the aforesaid application has been rejected by the respondent No.2 by its communication dtd. 6/3/2024, on the ground that the documents sought by the petitioner have already been furnished to him and it is also informed that if he is not satisfied he may also file an appeal under Sec. 19 of the RTI Act.

(3.) Shri Yeshwardhan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the copies of the documents which the petitioner wanted from the respondents were in respect of his own case and the application under RTI Act has been wrongly and arbitrarily rejected by the respondent on the grounds which are not contemplated under the RTI Act. It is also submitted that the order which has been passed in the departmental proceedings against him, has also not been communicated to him as the same has not been delivered to him and the person who has received the same is not known to the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner may not be relegated to file the appeal and respondents may be directed to furnish the documents.