ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 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 dated 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 dated 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 Section 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. 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. 4. Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no interference is made out, and it is submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy, and thus, the petition is not maintainable. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the documents filed on record as also the impugned communication dated 6.3.2024, passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner (RTI), Customs Commissionerate, Indore, which reads as under :- “ F.No.GEN/RTI/APP/371/2024-RTI-O/o COMMR-CUS-INDORE/904 Date: 6.3.2024 To, Shri Deepchand Saini, R/o Village-Bishanpura-1, Post- Pathriya, Bishanpura, Pilani, District-Jhunjhunun, Rajasthan-333031 Subject:- Information Sought under Right to Information Act, 2005-/reg. Sir, This is in reference to your RTI Application dated 20.2.2024 received in this office on 28.2.2024, wherein certain information has been sought.In this regard, the point wise reply of above mentioned RTI is as under:- 1. The Show Cause Notice No. GEN/ADJ/ADC/01/2023-ADJN-O/o COMMR- CUS-Indore/4965-67 dt. 3.1.2023 has been delivered to you by speed post. Further, the reply of the SCN filed by the counsel of the Applicant received in this office on 18.4.2023 which confirmed that the Show Cause Notice received by you. 2. The reply of the SCN dated 18.4.2023 filed by the Applicant himself through its counsel naming Shri D. S. Chadha and Prabjyoti K. Chadha. Further, the counsel of the Applicant appeared before the Adjudicating Authority on dt. 22.6.2023 and attended the Personal Hearing which already confirmed that the applicant and his Counsel both have the Show Cause Notice and its reply. 3.The Order-In-Original No. 02/ADC/CUS/IND/2023-24 dated 28.7.2023 had been sent through the speed post no EI520932557IN dt. 1.8.2023 on the same address on which Show Cause Notice was delivered and the soft copy of the above mentioned OIO was forwarded to the lawyer/Advocate appeared for the Applicant on their email id date 9.8.2023 (Copy enclosed of email here). Further vide Letter No. CCC/mise corr/Chap IV/2023- 4 dt. 8.2.2024 received from Dept. 1.8.2023 on the same address on which Show Cause Notice was delivered and the soft copy of the above mentioned OIO was forwarded to the lawyer/Advocate appeared for the Applicant on their email id date 9.8.2023 (Copy enclosed of email here). Further vide Letter No. CCC/mise corr/Chap IV/2023- 4 dt. 8.2.2024 received from Dept. of Post, O/o Senior Post Master Indore GPO452001 confirmed that the speed post no EI520932557IN dt. 1.8.2023 has been delivered by Pantharia B.O. which falls under Pilani S.O. on 7.8.2023 (Copy enclosed). Therefore, the Applicant received the OIO in Original on 7.8.2023. Your subject RTI application is hereby disposed at this end. In case, you are not satisfied, you may make an appeal to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of this letter as per provision under section 19 of the RTT Act 2005, whose details are as under: FAA: Shri Dinesh Kumar Bisen, Additional Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Customs, 3rd Floor, 12/2/7 & 12/2/8. B-ZoneBusiness Space Building, Gram Pipliya Kumar, Nipania, Indore 452 010 (M.P.) Encl:- As above. Signed by Shankar Subramanian Date 07-03-2024 15:55:29 Assistant Commissioner (RTI) Customs Commissioner Indore” 6. A perusal of the aforesaid communication clearly reveals that the respondents have gone on to the merits of the of the case regarding furnishing of the documents to the petitioner on earlier occasion, this Court is of the considered opinion that an application under RTI Act cannot be rejected in the manner in which it has been rejected by the respondent under section 6 of the RTI Act, whereas, such application could only have been rejected on the grounds available under s.8 of the Act of 2005 only, and none other grounds. 7. In such circumstances, without further reflecting upon the conduct of the respondents, the impugned order dated 6.3.2024, is hereby quashed with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh application under the RTI Act seeking the documents, which he had sought earlier, from the respondents within two weeks time, and the same shall be furnished to the petitioner except the internal note sheets, if exempted from disclosure u/s.8 of the Act of 2005, within further fifteen days. The charges for the same shall be paid by the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petitioner stands allowed and disposed of. 9. The charges for the same shall be paid by the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petitioner stands allowed and disposed of. 9. All the interlocutory applications (if any) stand also disposed of.