- (1.) There is one fundamental mistake that the Commissioner committed while passing the order dated 5th February, 2014. While dealing with the request of the writ petitioner for supply of copies of note-sheets, intra department correspondence, etc. pertaining to the investigation of the case, he referred to the Right to Information Act. He said that the application of the petitioner under the said Act and anticipation of its outcome could not stop the adjudication process. I take note of the fact that the Revenue has not relied upon those documents. Neither strictly speaking they can be called the petitioner's documents which are in the custody of the Revenue, which might give a right to the petitioner to compel the Revenue to produce the documents.
(2.) In my opinion, the information under the Right to Information Act and its outcome have nothing to do with the disclosure of documents in a case. The Commissioner had to decide whether those documents which the writ petitioner wanted were to be disclosed to the writ petitioner at all or whether some of the documents could be disclosed. If those documents could not be made available to the writ petitioner, reasons therefore had to be given.
(3.) Thereafter, the Commissioner ought to have decided whether to give an opportunity to the writ petitioner to file an additional reply to the show cause notice.;