Central Information Commission
Sandipan Khan vs Director General Of Income Tax (Hrd), ... on 28 January, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DGITH/A/2018/625414-BJ
Mr. Sandipan Khan
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Directorate General of Income Tax (HRD)
CBDT, J. L. N. Stadium, Pragati Vihar, 2nd Floor
New Delhi - 110003
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.01.2020
Date of Decision : 28.01.2020
Date of RTI application 29.01.2018
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 12.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding a copy of the government OM/circular/notification/order etc. for reimbursement of expenses for official specified dress for Departmental Representatives appearing before the ITAT and any such communication with respect to specified dress for the officials attending the India Trade Fair at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Sandipan Khan through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Suresh Kumar, ITO;Page 1 of 5
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that no information was provided by the CPIO/FAA. In its reply, the Respondent present at the hearing stated that the since the contents of the RTI application pertained to the ITAT, the notice of hearing for Appeal received from the Commission, was forwarded to the said Tribunal. On being queried by the Commission regarding the status of transferring of the RTI application/Appeal, the Respondent feigned ignorance and submitted that he had joined recently. While contesting the above averments, the Appellant submitted that the instant matter pertained to the CBDT (Audit and Judicial Wing) / Legal Cell and therefore the same should have been provided by the Office of the CBDT. On being queried by the Commission, whether the Government's OM/Circular/Order, etc. for reimbursement of expenses for official specified dress, available in the public domain, the Appellant replied in the negative.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil wherein it was submitted that incomplete and misleading information was provided to him. He also enclosed an affidavit dated 16.01.2020 of Shri Debasis Roy, a former Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, stating inter alia to the effect that he had visited the USA on official training programme and the expenditure of official dress was borne by the IT Department. Therefore, it was requested to the Commission to furnish correct and complete information as also prayed for compensation u/s 19(8) of the RTI Act, 2005, in view of the Commission's order in Sandipan Khan vs. Railway Board in CIC/RAILB/A/2017/153589.
The Appellant vide it's another submissions dated 21.01.2020 while referring to an RTI application dated 25.01.2018 stated that complete information was necessary for him for an official training programme which he attended complying with unique and expensive mandated dress and that the dress expenses was not reimbursed. Furthermore, he desired the requisite information to prove his case. Hence, it was prayed to the Commission to provide him the complete information as also compensate him for financial loss and agony he had suffered, as per the provisions of Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission felt that timely response is the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
The Commission observed that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and pointed reply to the information seeker. In this context, a reference can be made to the judgment of the Page 2 of 5 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken".
The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only.
The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"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."Page 3 of 5
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
Furthermore, in this context a reference was also made to the OM no. No.1/6/2011-IR dated 15.04.2013 issued by the DoP&T pertaining to guidelines for the implementation of suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 4 of 5The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission was appalled to learn that the RTI application / First Appeal was not replied within the stipulated time period as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the Chairman, CBDT to get the matter examined and fix responsibility and accountability on the concerned officials as also to furnish a clear, cogent and precise response to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Respondent Public Authority was further advised to suo motu disclose the details of the Government's OM/Circular/Order, etc. for reimbursement of expenses for official specified dress, for the ease and convenience of the all concerned.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 28.01.2020
Copy to:-
1- Chairman, CBDT, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001;
2- DG, HRD Director General of Income Tax (HRD), 2nd Floor, ICADR Building, Plot No. 6, Vasant Kunj, Institutional Area, Phase-2, New Delhi - 110010 Page 5 of 5