Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 17 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मु िनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : As per the Annexure.
RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
JCIT, Range-3, Bokaro,
RTI Cell, O/o Pr. Commissioner
Of Income-Tax, Aayakar Bhawan,
Rabindra Path, Hazaribagh-825301,
Jharkhand. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11/05/2023
Date of Decision : 11/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The instant Complaints have been clubbed together for decision as these
are based on similar nature of information sought.
Relevant facts emerging from complaints:
RTI applications filed on : 31/07/2020
CPIO replied(ies) on : 20/08/2020
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaints dated : 27/08/2022
1
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/646908
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2003."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/646909 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2004."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/646910 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2005."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/646911 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.2
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2006."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/646913 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2001."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/646914 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2002."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647526 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2009."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647527 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:3
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2010."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647531 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2011."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647532 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2012."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647533 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2013."4
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647534 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2014."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647535 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2015."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647536 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2016."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647549 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2017."5
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647550 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2018."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647551 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2019."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647552 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2020."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647521 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2007."6
CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647522 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in respect of Income Tax Office, Bokaro, Jharkhand.
1. Name and designation of all Officers and officials posted as on 01/04/2008."
The CPIO furnished separate replies to the complainant against each impugned RTI Applications on 26.08.2020 denying information as under:-
" Service details of employees are personal in nature and it cannot be disclosed under RTI as per the Honourable Supreme Court case law Canara Bank vs CIC AIR 2007 KER 225 2008 1 ID 241."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant directly approached the Commission with the instant set of Complaint(s) on the grounds that "the CPIO has denied the information on false and baseless grounds and that he has malafide intention to deny the information. Further, the Complainant prayed to the Commission that Penalty/Fine may kindly be imposed on the CPIO as also disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against the CPIO."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Aron Kachhap, JCIT & CPIO present through video-conference.
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his consolidated written submission dated 08.05.2023 (copy marked to the Complainant) relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
"...2) It is pertinent to mention here that the Applicant and Complainant has already filed compliant u/s 18 of the RTI Act. 2005 against the above mentioned RTI applications before the Hon'ble C1C, New Delhi on 04-09- 2020.Not only this, the above cases were also heard by Hon'ble CIC. New Delhi 7 on 28-12-2022 and passed the Order accordingly on 28-12-2022(copy of order Is enclosed for your kind reference).
3) The applications dated 31.07.2020 seeking information had been received by erstwhile CPIO presently posted as Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax in the office of the ITAT, C.R. Building, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand and the replies of CPR) dated 20.08.2020 & 26.08.2020 were communicated to the applicant.
4) The Applicant and Complainant has availed neither Ist appeal nor 2nd appeal. In this appeals also he has filed complaint petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act 2005 with a request to Impose penalty upon the then CP10.If the Applicant/ Complainant is really serious about getting the information first he should have asked to provide the information.
5) The reply/information given against RTI query namely, 'Name and Designation of all Officers and Officials posted as on 01.04-2001, 01.04-2002, 01-
044003, 01.04.2004. 01-04.2005, 01.04-2006, 01.04-2007, 01.04-2008 01- 04.2009, 01-04-2010. 01-04.2011, 01-04-2012, 01.04-2013, 01-04.2014, 01.04- 2015, 01-04-2016. 01.04-2017 01.04-2018, 01-044019, 01.04-2020 and 01- 04.2021 Service details of employees are personal in nature and it cannot be disclosed under RTI as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court case law Canons bank Vs CIC AIR 2007KER 225 2008'.
6) The observation of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Canara Bank vs CS. Shyam on 31 August 2017 Civil Appeal no. 22 of 2009 was as under;
In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the Jeers of this case on all force. It Is for the reason that firstly. the information sought by respondent Ha disclosed any public interest much less larger public Interest invoked in ceeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1.
7) The complaint was filed against these replies u/s I8 read with section 20 of RTI Act, 2005.
8) The question here Is how the complainant has formed the belief that ( I )'the CPIO has denied the information on wrong and absurd grounds of request being of clarificatory nature and (2) "The CPIO malafide intention so that 8 corruption is not exposed'. The fact that the onus to establish malafide, wrong and absurd ground or unreasonable conduct of the CPIO is on the Complainant/ Appellant. Observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court In Bhagat Singh v. C1C & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 is pertinent In this matter: 'However. the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the Information.
9. It is to humbly mention here that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors. V. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Ant. (delivered on 01.06.2012) held as under"
'Even if It were to be assumed for the sake of argument that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIO; were obliged U, provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act it could not be said that the information had been withheld mulafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonalidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the kr Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct i.e., where the P/O, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIGS in every other case, without any Justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as Pies in the public authorities'
10) It is humbly submitted that the multiple an applications and then multiple complaints have been filed by the complainant However, erstwhile CPIO has replied against all RTI application after due application of mind and within the meaning of section 2(f) of RTI Act without any malafide intention and within the prescribed time. However, all 20 (twenty) RTI applications filed on the same date 31-07-2020. The working situation had become unmanageable and clogged with multiple RTI applications. It is to mention here that the Horible High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer. Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi (WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.20141 has also given its opinion:9
he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public: authority, as it would be against the larger public interest ..."
11) In the above context, it is also submitted that [W.P.(C) No.7911/2015) the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its order dated 08.10.2015 has held that:
"8....Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act
12) Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the Apex Court had discussed the issue in great detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where I. Pasayat had held:
" ...... It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days ore wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent .for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot ovoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in .service matter, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case.. etc. Etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious Interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by www.taxquru.in Page 8 of 12 wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of out judicial systems..."10
Decision At the outset, considering the submissions of the CPIO , the Commission would like to recall its observations in the previous similar Complaints of the Complainant in case no. CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684500 and others decided on 28/12/2022 which is as under -
"...Decision At the outset, the Commission observes from a perusal of records that a bunch of Complaints (s) bearing File no. CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/668839 & others of the same Complainant against same/another public authority have already been heard and disposed of by this bench on 30.12.2021, 26.08.2022, 25.11.2022 & 27.12.2022. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Complaints listed for today's hearing have been heard together along with other 17 matters of the Complainant simultaneously and the Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the time span of information sought in each of his RTI Applications merely to pressurize the public authority into acceding to his request for similar nature of information. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of 11 corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing, the Complainant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future."
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application(s) in question is of the considered view that the CPIO has appropriately denied the name and designation of all Officers and officials for the averred period to the Complainant; however it should have been technically denied by the CPIO by quoting Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it actually impinges on the privacy of the third party officials. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Complainant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information"
12envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Moreover, at this stage the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of the Complainant for initiating penal action against the CPIO in the absence of any malafide ascribed on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Additionally, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
13"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
Xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission also notes that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009 Date of decision:
04.03.2010 (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another); had held as under:
"3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty."
Having observed as above and considering the inability of the Complainant in substantiating his level of dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply in the instant Complaints, no further action is warranted in the instant matters."
14In view of the applicability of the rationale of aforesaid decision of the bench, the Commission finds no scope of further intervention in the matter and upholds the submissions of the CPIO.
The Complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date Sl.No. File No. 1 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/646908 2 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/646909 3 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/646910 4 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/646911 5 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/646913 6 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/646914 7 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647526 8 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647527 15 9 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647531 10 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647532 11 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647533 12 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647534 13 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647535 14 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647536 15 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647549 16 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647550 17 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647551 18 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647552 19 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647521 20 CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/647522 16