Central Information Commission
Usha Singhal vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 22 April, 2019
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.(s) / िशकायत सं या / Complaint No:-
CIC/CCITJ/A/2017/608760-BJ+
CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/609322-BJ+
CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/618721-BJ+
CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/633885-BJ
Ms. Usha Singhal
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO & ITO (Hqrs.)
Office of the Principal Chief information Commissioner
Aayakar Bhawan, Range 2, 22 Moti Dungri
Alwar - 301001
2. CPIO
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle - 2, Central Circle, Moti Dungri
Alwar - 301001
3. CPIO
Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA)
NCR Building, Statue Circle
Jaipur - 302005
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.04.2019
Date of Decision : 22.04.2019
ORDER
RTI - 1 Appeal No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2017/608760-BJ Date of RTI application 27.10.2017 CPIO's response 10.11.2017 (as mentioned in the FAA's order) Date of the First Appeal 15.11.2017 Page 1 of 12 First Appellate Authority's response 30.11.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 05 points in respect of Mr. Jagdish Prasad Agarwal (her deceased father), whether Income Tax Return for the Financial Year 2015-16 ending on 31.03.2016 was filed by him or through his authorized CA or by any other registered legal heir; whether his account was closed or operated by any registered legal heir, if operated by registered legal heir, who was registered as his legal heir; copy of last Income Tax Return filed by him (F.Y. 2015-16 or last return filed), etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 10.11.2017 denied disclosure of information being third party information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 30.11.2017 while referring to the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Patel Vs. Asst. CIT, upheld the CPIO's response.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/609322-BJ Date of RTI application 03.12.2017 CPIO's response 26.12.2017 Date of the First Appeal 01.01.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 05.01.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 11 points in respect of Mr. Jagdish Prasad Agarwal (her deceased father), details as on 31.03.2016 as per income tax return/ partnership deed records filed by firm or otherwise for year ending, percentage share of deceased in total capital employed by firm as on 31.03.2016, capital employed standing in the name of her deceased father, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 26.12.2017 denied disclosure of information being third party information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 05.01.2018 provided a response to the Appellant (not legible).
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/618721-BJ
Date of RTI application 29.01.2018
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal Nil
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
Page 2 of 12
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding Net Taxable Income of her deceased father for the FY 1987-88 as also for the FY 2014-15 onwards, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA, The reply of the CPIO/ FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI - 4 File No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/633885-BJ Date of RTI application 14.09.2018 CPIO's response 09.10.2018 Date of the First Appeal 13.10.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 17.10.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information in respect of her grievance made at CPGRAMS portal, copy of report which was referred to by ACIT and which was received by him, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 09.10.2018 requested the Appellant to provide the exact date of reply whose reference had been made in her application. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 17.10.2018 denied disclosure of information as the relevant information was held with the department in a confidential nature as also it was related to internal correspondence of the department.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Anil Singhal and Mr. Aman Singhal Appellant's representatives; Respondent: Mr. Babu Lal Meena, ACIT, Alwar in person; and Mr. P. K. Sharma, ITO (HQ), Jaipur and Mr. G. D. Sharma, Dy. Comm., Jaipur through VC;
The Appellant's representatives reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that she had sought the information related to the Income Tax Returns filed by her deceased father and that being the daughter/ Class-I Legal heir she was entitled to get the information. In support of her contention, the Appellant submitted that the name of her deceased father appeared in her PAN Card/ Birth Certificate and the Death Certificate of her father which proved that she was the rightful legal heir. It was also stated that she had been registered as a Legal Heir of her deceased father on the Income Tax website and submitted proof of her registration to the CPIO. Explaining the background of the matter, the Appellant submitted that she had raised a TEP against the family of her deceased father and had sought the details of his Income Tax Return. She had also sought the details of the returns of the Partnership Firm in which her father was a partner before his death, since after his death as alleged, the firms were taken over by remaining surviving partners by submitting false information to various public authorities. She argued that Page 3 of 12 the partnership firm was a partnership by will and got dissolved on the death of her father on 08.08.2016 as per the operation of law and was dissolved by the surviving partners who on 10.08.2016 entered into a new partnership deed with the same firm name and took over the assets of the old firm at its book value. She further alleged that it was a ploy by the surviving partners against her to take over her share from her deceased father. She also submitted that information regarding the old firm in which her father was a partner was provided in another RTI application by the Bank of Baroda while details of the new firm were not disclosed on the grounds being held in a fiduciary capacity. Thus, she submitted that she was entitled to get all the information in the instant cases as well. In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the replies of the CPIO/ FAA and submitted that being a Third Party information, it was not disclosed to the Appellant more so for the reason that she had not furnished the proof which could conclusively establish that she was the legal heir in the matter. In support of their contention, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant had filed a Probate Petition at Alwar Court which was presently sub-judice. Hence, no information could be disclosed to the Appellant till the aforementioned matter had attained finality. The Appellant while acknowledging the fact of pendency of the Probate Petition re-
iterated that she had been registered as a Legal Heir on the website of the IT Department hence claimed her entitlement to get the information. It was apprehended that the petition in Alwar Court could be a prolonged process and therefore to establish and substantiate her rights, she thought it prudent to file an application under the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated NIL (Appeal No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/618721-BJ) wherein while contesting the reply/order of the CPIO/FAA, it was inter-alia prayed to the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide her all information as also to impose penalty on CPIO. She also highlighted that her brothers had grabbed all the wealth and properties and requested that as this matter had revealed non filing of ITR by legal heirs of deceased and no notice was issued/ no action was taken by the Income Tax Office, hence, they should be directed to take suitable action in a time bound manner. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated NIL (Appeal No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/609322-BJ) wherein while explaining the background of the case, it was inter-alia prayed to the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide her all information as also to impose penalty on CPIO. She also requested that the Income Tax Office should be directed to examine ITRs and Books of Accounts of the firm and to take suitable action in a time bound manner against the remaining partners.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 14.09.2018 (Appeal No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/633885-BJ) wherein while contesting the reply/order of the CPIO/FAA, it was inter-alia prayed to the Commission to direct the CPIO/FAA to provide her the copy of report sought as also to impose penalty on CPIO for withholding information and for not performing his duties. It was also requested to direct the IT Office to conduct time bound inquiry and thorough investigations on her complaints and recover tax evasion amounts by firm and to penalize for other irregularities and thoroughly check their book of accounts.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated NIL (Appeal No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/618721-BJ) wherein while explaining the background of the case, it was inter-alia prayed to the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide her all information as also to impose penalty on CPIO. She also requested that as this matter had revealed non filing Page 4 of 12 of ITR by legal heirs of deceased and no notice was issued / no action was taken by the Income Tax Office, hence, they should be directed to take suitable action in a time bound manner.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 12.04.2019 (Appeal No.:- CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/618721-BJ) wherein while reiterating the chronological sequences in the matter, it was submitted that being the Nodal Officer for RTI matters, the then ITO (Hq), O/o Pr. CCIT, Rajasthan, Jaipur had only transferred the RTI application to the concerned CPIO, i.e. CPIO in the office of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar as the Income Tax assessment of Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal was being done in the charge of Pr. CIT, Alwar, and the information sought by the Appellant, being income details shown in the Income Tax returns of Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal pertained to Alwar charge. It was for the CPIO, O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar to provide the information, which was not done by him within the time of 30 days provided under the RTI Act. Therefore, the Appellant filed first Appeal before the Pr. CIT, Alwar, which was disposed of by him on 27.03.2018. The information sought by the Appellant did not appear to have been provided by the CPIO concerned in the charge of Pr. CIT, Alwar. So far as the Nodal Officer/ITO (Hq), O/o Pr. CCIT, Rajasthan, Jaipur, was concerned, being the Nodal Officer, he had only transferred the online RTI application for disposal of the RTI application to the concerned CPIO at Alwar as the PAN and Income Tax return details were held by the concerned CPIO at Alwar. Thus, there was no infirmity in the action of the Nodal Officer as online applications received were required to be transferred to the concerned CPIO by him. The other issues and point raised in the application would be explained and replied by the concerned CPIO at Alwar, to whom notice hearing and letter for appearing before the Hon'ble CIC had been issued by this office (copy enclosed for ready reference). The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, ITO(HQ), O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, dated 12.04.2019 (Appeal No.:- CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/633885-BJ) wherein while reiterating the chronological sequences in the matter, it was submitted that being the Nodal Officer for RTI matters, the then ITO (Hq), O/o Pr. CCIT, Rajasthan, Jaipur had only transferred the RTI application to the concerned CPIO, i.e. ACIT, Circle-2, Alwar as the matter related to report referred by ACIT, Alwar regarding remedial action in M/s Vijay Automobiles, M/s J.P. Agarwal, was assessed at Alwar. Thus, there was no infirmity in the action of the Nodal Officer as online applications received were required to be transferred to the concerned CPIO by him. The other issues and point raised in the application would be explained and replied by the concerned CPIO at Alwar, who had disposed of the RTI application and by the FAA at Alwar. The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"Page 5 of 12
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
As regards the information sought regarding Income Tax details of Mr. Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, (her deceased father) the Commission observed that the same fell in the category of Third Party information which was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."Page 6 of 12
In this context, the decision of the Commission in Milap Choraria v. CBDT CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 dated 15.06.2009 can be cited wherein it had been held as under:
"15. From the above discussion, it would appear that the Income Tax Returns have been rightly held to be 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority; and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this information."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Naresh Kumar Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011 dated 24.11.2014 had observed as under:
"25. Indisputably, Section 8(1)(j) of the Act would be applicable to the information pertaining to Dr Naresh Trehan (petitioner in W.P.(C) 88/2010) and the information contained in the income tax returns would be personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. However, the CIC directed disclosure of information of Dr Trehan also by concluding that income tax returns and information provided for assessment was in relation to a "public activity." In my view, this is wholly erroneous and unmerited. The act of filing returns with the department cannot be construed as public activity. The expression "public activity" would mean activities of a public nature and not necessarily act done in compliance of a statute. The expression "public activity" would denote activity done for the public and/or in some manner available for participation by public or some section of public. There is no public activity involved in filing a return or an individual pursuing his assessment with the income tax authorities. In this view, the information relating to individual assessee could not be disclosed. Unless, the CIC held that the same was justified "in the larger public interest"
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the decision of Shailesh Gandhi v. CIC and Ors WP 8753 of 2013 dated 06.05.2015 had held as under
"16......the said contention is thoroughly misconceived as filing of Income Tax Returns can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a public activity, but is an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes and since the said information is held by the Income Tax Department in a fiduciary capacity, the same cannot be directed to be revealed unless the prerequisites for the same are satisfied.
23...........Since the right to privacy has been recognised as a fundamental right to which a citizen is entitled to, therefore unless the conditions mentioned in Section 8 (1) (j) is satisfied, the information cannot be provided."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Vinubhai Haribhai Patel (Malavia) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Civil Application No. 7187 of 2014 dated 16.07.2015 had held as under:
"5. Now, turning to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the kind and nature of the information demanded by the petitioner clearly falls within the expression "personal information". The personal character of the information demanded in the nature of Income-tax Returns of the private parties to get disclosure about the payment of tax by Page 7 of 12 them which was again in order to know about their status as agriculturists declared to be so by the authorities in the legal proceedings, could be indeed said to be personal. It was in the background of litigation between the petitioner and the said private persons relating to their property rights wherein the Will in favour of private parties was disputed and the disputes of civil nature were being agitated before the forum concerned and the court. This information being personal in nature, could not be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner, rather they were clearly exempted information under Section 8(1)(j). The contention of larger public interest justifying the disclosure does not exist. In disclosing the said information asked for by the petitioner relating to the private parties, there was no element of public interest to be sub-served. The information was personal information relating to third parties. The attendant facts and circumstances and the litigation between the petitioner and those parties, instead indicated that the information was personal information which was asked for by the petitioner for his own personal interest and private purpose. Respondent No. 3- Central Information Commissioner was eminently justified in taking a view that there was no public interest present in the information claimed to be supplied, rightly denying the same by dismissing the appeal."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CPIO vs. Hemant Kumar Behera W.P.(C) 11658/2017 & CM No. 47383/2017 dated 27.08.2018 held as under:
"17. Mere apprehension that a third party has declared income, which is lower than the true income, cannot justify disclosure of Income Tax Returns in larger public interest."
The Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim in the matter of Sancha Bahadur Subba vs. State of Sikkim W.P. (C) 31/2017 dated 30.04.2018 had held as under:
"30. What concludes therefore from the gamut of discussions herein above is that in a given case information pertaining to assets and liabilities can be disclosed with the rider that there must be larger public interest involved justifying such disclosure. As can be culled out from the averments and submissions, the Petitioner herein suspects that the Respondent No. 5 is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, however mere suspicion without any prima facie material to substantiate it does not justify the disclosure of such information of the Respondent No. 5 as rests with the concerned government authority. This situation indeed appears to be a fishing expedition embarked upon by the Petitioner without any bona fide public interest. In these circumstances, it obtains that disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and falls under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."
With regard to larger public interest in the matter, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Mahesh Mangalat (Date of Decision: 17th March, 2015) (W.P.(C) No. 7431/2011) had held:-
"18. Prior to the enactment of the RTI Act, access to any information pertaining to public authorities was correlated to the locus standi of the requestor. In other words, it was necessary for the information-seeker to show why he/she wanted the information before a decision could be made to give or not to give the information sought by him. With the enactment of the RTI Act this requirement has been changed drastically. The present Act abolishes the concept of locus standi as under section 6(2) of the RTI Act no reasons Page 8 of 12 need to be given for seeking information. However, this restriction on disclosure of reasons cannot be misconstrued to mean that any information pertaining to a public authority or its employees is public information.
19. It is a settled law that for seeking personal information regarding any employee of the public authority the applicant must disclose a "sustainable public interest‟. Even Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act was enacted to ensure that all information furnished to public authorities including personal information is not given free access to. As per this Section unless the CPIO or the State PIO or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies, the disclosure of any such information that invades the privacy of an individual is not permissible. Moreover, the Commission relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein in the context of exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Court had held that exemption provided under Section 8 of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. The relevant observations are mentioned as under:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252] ). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)].
23. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision."
The Appellant could not contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Moreover, the Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Page 9 of 12 Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) Page 10 of 12 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on:
01.06.2012) wherein it was held:
" 61. 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 PIOs were obliged to 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 malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. 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 showcause 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. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
Similarly, 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:
"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 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.
......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 Page 11 of 12 so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Appellant could not substantiate her claims regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties as also taking into consideration that the Probate Petition was sub-judice before the concerned Court, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter at this stage. For redressal of her grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeals stand 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: 22.04.2019
Page 12 of 12