/1 $-.- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 45 + WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2287 of 2010 R.S. SAWANT Petitioner Through: Mr. Devadatt Kamat with Mr. Nitin Lonkar and Mr. Priyank Gelang, Advocates versus . P.G. NAIK, C.P.I.O, COMMISSIONERATE OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA Respondent Through: CORAM : JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR npn' , p /0 0/ 08.04.2010 CM APPL No. 4610/2010 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of . Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2287/20 10 The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 301h October 2009 of the f Central Information Commission ('CIC') dismissing the 'second appeal' filed by the Petitioner herein. This Court has heard the submissions of learned counsel for the Petitioner. The order of the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Panaji, Goa in the present case is a very detailed one. The three broad heads of information sought by the Petitioner are as under: "Point 1: The details of various cases both criminal and civil registered by your office from 01.03.2007 till date against the W.P. (Civil) No. 228712010 Page 1 of 2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Customs officials, the importers and exporters and which are still under investigation. Point 2: The details of action being taken andlor proposal against the said Customs officials, importers and exporters and the current status of each of such cases registered against them. Point 3: Whether any departmental inquiries are being conducted against any of the Customs officials, arising during the above mentioned period and if yes, then in what connection such inquiries are being conducted." . AL While information regarding Points 1 and 2 was provided to the Petitioner, the information relating to third point was denied by the Central Public Information Officer ('CPIO') on the ground that it did not qualify the test of 'information' under Section 2 (f of the Right to Information Act 2005. The counsel for the Petitioner states that while information has been provided even on Point 3 to a limited extent, the names of the officers 10 against whom enquiries are pending have not been provided. 4 In the considered view of this Court, the impugned order does not call for any interference. It has been correctly observed that the Petitioner was only making a roving inquiry which is an abuse of the process of law. There is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed as such. t- ,~ S. MURALIDHAR, J. APRIL 8, 2010 rk W.P. (Civil) No. 228712010 Page 2of2