Public Information Officer should provide proper information.

In an appeal filed by our Association under the Right to Information Act, the Additional Commr. of Sales Tax (C), Enforcement has ordered the Public Information Officer to provide the information asked by the appellant. This is with regard to outsourcing the work of printing & servicing of profession tax courtesy letters by the State Government to E.C.I.L., Hyderabad. As the order is self explanatory, it is published here under –

In the Court of Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, enforcement (C), Maharashtra State, Mumbai 822, Vikrikar Bhavan, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010.

Appellant : Shri Kishor Totaram Lulla, R/O, Abhyankar Complex, Amrai Road, Sangli

vs.

Non-Appellant : Public Information Officer, and Personal Assistant to Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Enforcement (C), Maharashtra State, Mumbai, 822, Vikrikar Bhavan, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010.

ORDER

(U/s. 19(1) of the Central Right of Information Act-2005 Passed on 4-1-2007)

This appeal arose out of the information supplied by Information Officer and Personal Assistant to Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Enforcement (C) Maharashtra State, Mumbai, vide letter No. JC(C)/Enf/I.A.Lulla/06.07/2/15/B-1863, Mumbai, Dt. 4-10-2006 received on 11-10-2006.

As per section 19(1) of the Central Right of Information Act-2005, appeal should be filed within 30 days. Appellant has received the information sent by Information Officer (Personal Assistant to Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Enforcement (C), Maharashtra State, Mumbai) on 11-10-2006 and has filed appeal on 23-11-2006 at this office, above appeal has been filed after delay of more than 30 days from receiving the information. Appellant has not preferred application for condonation of delay. However in the public interest, I condone the delay in filing of appeal.

Grounds of the appeal in respect of information provided by non appellant is as follows:–

1. Copy of tender published for printing and servicing of P.T. & E.C. challans and the activity to be outsourced is not given. Also the information about the date and name of newspaper in which the said tender is published.
    

2. Only list of persons who filed the tender is given but the amount written in tender filed by each of them is not given.
    

3. Copy of the agreement made with agency to whom the job is allotted is not given.
    

4. Total bill of the said agency and total expenses incurred for the job is not given.

The other grounds expressed in appeal pertain to Information Officer (Personal Assistant to Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Professional Tax Maharashtra State, Mumbai) and are dealt separately by their office.

After going through the records of Information Officer (Personal Assistant to Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Enforcement (C), Maharashtra State, Mumbai.) and the points raised by Mr. Kishor Totaram Lulla during hearing of appeal on 15-12-2006, I am satisfied that the Information requested by
Mr. Kishore Totaram Lulla in his appeal must be granted in public interest.

Even though no separate tender has been called for just printing and servicing of courtesy letter, it was part of processes outsourced by office of, Commissioner, Sales Tax, PIO was technically correct and appellant had not mentioned proper Document/Information to be given but intention is clear. Hence as printing & servicing being part of process outsourced through tender, same should be provided to appellant.

Appellant had asked for details of tender amount with respect to printing and servicing of challan. I was given to understand that no separate amount was asked to be quoted by vendors and it was fixed amount which was, mentioned in Financial Bid, hence it was not provided. Even though this was case, same should have been brought to the notice of appellant and whatever amount has been mentioned should have been provided to appellant.

As far as copy of agreement made with agency is concerned, as agreement has not been executed so far, hence same has not been provided to appellant. Hence PIO is justified is not providing that document so far as. Total bills of said agency is concerned, as bill had not been raised by vendor and no payment had been done to vendor, hence PIO was justified and he or she cannot be expected to furnish out of blue. Appellant has not made out any case that this information existed and same was not provided to him.

In the light of above facts and discussion, I hereby order that non appellant should provide appellant copy of tender calling for outsourcing Printing and Servicing of challan/Courtesy letter which happens to part of process outsourced by Sales Tax Department, as well as providing information as to rate quoted by vendors in financial Bid with regard to Printing and Servicing of courtesy letter if any and if any fixed amount is mentioned in ITB then same be provided to appellant after collecting copying charges from appellant. Order passed under my hand and seal.

(Santosh Kumar)
Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (C)
Enforcement, Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
ANNEXURE A
[See rule 3]

To

The State Public Information Officer,
Office of the Commissioner of Sales Tax,
Room No. 614, 6th Floor,
Vikrikar Bhavan, Mazgaon,
Mumbai.