Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 28 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428
Radha Raman Tripathy ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.01.2026
Date of Decision : 27.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant as
well as the Respondent are common, subject-matter is similar in nature and
hence are being disposed of through a common order.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.10.2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
1
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's : Not on record
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.06.2023
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to attached letter of Asset. Director (Vigilance) to JS (Admn) which is self-explanatory. No action has been taken until today by the CBDT.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Action taken and closer report on this letter until today.
2. Copy of file noting involving Action taken on this latter until today.
3. The Fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2022
CPIO replied on : 16.08.2022
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's : Not on record
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.08.2023
2
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 Information sought:
4. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to enclosed copy of complaint (First Page only) for ready reference.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Action taken on my complaint as above from date of receipt until today.
2. Copy of complete file noting involving action taken on my complaint as above.
3. The Fee is paid online."
5. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 16.08.2022 stating as under:
"1. Case is under enquiry and is being processed under file DGIT(V)/PSR/EZ/1016/19.
2. At this stage, any detail of enquiry/investigation cannot be provided as it could impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. This information is exempt under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
6. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
3CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2022 CPIO replied on : 16.08.2022 First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority's : Not on record order 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.08.2023 Information sought:
7. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to enclosed copy of complaint (First Page only) for ready reference.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Action taken on my complaint as above from date of receipt until today.
2. Copy of complete file noting involving action taken on my complaint as above.
3. The Fee is paid online."
8. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 16.08.2022 stating as under:
"1. Case is under enquiry and is being processed under file DGIT(V)/PSR/EZ/1016/19.
2. At this stage, any detail of enquiry/investigation cannot be provided as it could impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. This information is exempt under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."4
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428
9. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
10. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2022 CPIO replied on : 16.08.2022 First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority's : Not on record order 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.08.2023 Information sought:
11. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to enclosed copy of complaint (First Page only) for ready reference.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Action taken on my complaint as above from date of receipt until today.
2. Copy of complete file noting involving action taken on my complaint as above.
3. The Fee is paid online."
12. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 16.08.2022 stating as under:
5CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 "1. Case is under enquiry and is being processed under file DGIT(V)/PSR/EZ/1016/19.
2. At this stage, any detail of enquiry/investigation cannot be provided as it could impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. This information is exempt under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
13. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
14. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2022 CPIO replied on : 16.08.2022 First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority's : Not on record order 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.08.2023 Information sought:
15. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to enclosed copy of complaint (First Page only) for ready reference.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Action taken on my complaint as above from date of receipt until today.6
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428
2. Copy of complete file noting involving action taken on my complaint as above.
3. The Fee is paid online."
16. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 16.08.2022 stating as under:
"1. Case is under enquiry and is being processed under file DGIT(V)/PSR/EZ/1016/19.
2. At this stage, any detail of enquiry/investigation cannot be provided as it could impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. This information is exempt under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
17. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2022 CPIO replied on : 16.08.2022 First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority's : Not on record order 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.08.2023 Information sought:
18. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
7CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 "Kindly refer to enclosed copy of complaint (First Page only) for ready reference.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Action taken on my complaint as above from date of receipt until today.
2. Copy of complete file noting involving action taken on my complaint as above.
3. The Fee is paid online."
19. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 16.08.2022 stating as under:
"1. Case is under enquiry and is being processed under file DGIT(V)/PSR/EZ/1016/19.
2. At this stage, any detail of enquiry/investigation cannot be provided as it could impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. This information is exempt under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
20. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA's order is not on record.
21. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent 8 CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 Respondent: Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh Visen, CPIO & Dy. Director of Income Tax; and Shri Rakesh, Inspector, appeared in person.
22. Proof of having served copies of Complaints on Respondent while filing the same in CIC are not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non- service.
23. The Respondents while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise replies to the Complainant against his RTI applications which were received by them. Besides, they stated that they had also filed written submissions in some cases and requested the Commission to place the same on record.
24. As regards case file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, the Respondents submitted that enclosures to the RTI application filed by the Complaint is not available with them and in the absence of which, he expressed his inability to provide the information to the Complainant. The Respondent assured that if the Complainant provides enclosure to his RTI application, then they would provide the reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
25. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434 are reproduced as under:
2. In this regard, it is submitted that the appellant had earlier filed an online RTI application bearing reg. no. CBODT/R/E/22/01783 dated 13.07.2022 which was subsequently transferred to this Directorate online via RTI Portal on 18.07.2022 bearing reg. no. DGIVN/R/T/22/00072 (copy enclosed). Vide the RTI application, the appellant had sought certain information/documents with respect to action taken on the complaint filed by him earlier before this Directorate and complete copy of the file notings thereof involving action taken on his complaint. The CPIO had duly disposed of the said RTI application on 16.08.2022 (Copy enclosed) vide this office letter F. No. DGIT(Vig.)/RRT/06/2022/2977 as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and order of the CPIO was duly uploaded on the RTI Portal on 16.08.2022.
3. However, the appellant Sh. R.R. Tripathy has filed complaint before the Hon'ble CIC stating that no reply with respect to the abovesaid RTI 9 CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 application has been received by him until today. It is available on record that the CPIO has duly disposed off the RTI application within the stipulated time as per provisions of RTI Act. Copy of the order furnished by the CPIO, RTI application filed by the appellant dated 13.07.2022 & action history downloaded from the RTI Portal.
26. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/ 638432 are reproduced as under:
In this regard, it is submitted that the appellant had earlier filed an online RTI application bearing reg. no. CBODT/R/E/22/01784 dated 13.07.2022 which was subsequently transferred to this Directorate online via RTI Portal on 18.07.2022 bearing reg. no. DGIVN/R/T/22/00073 (copy enclosed). Vide the RTI application, the appellant had sought certain information/documents with respect to action taken on the complaint filed by him earlier before this Directorate and complete copy of the file notings thereof. The CPIO had duly disposed of the said RTI application on 16.08.2022 vide letter F. No. DGIT(Vig.)/RRT/06/2022/2978 (Copy enclosed) as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and order of the CPIO was duly uploaded on the RTI Portal on 16.08.2022.
3. However, the appellant Sh. R.R. Tripathy has filed complaint before the Hon'ble CIC stating that no reply with respect to the abovesaid RTI application has been received by him until today. It is available on record that the CPIO has duly disposed off the RTI application within the stipulated time as per provisions of RTI Act. Copy of the order furnished by the CPIO, RTI application filed by the appellant dated 13.07.2022 & action history downloaded from the RTI Portal.
27. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 are reproduced as under:
In this regard, it is submitted that the appellant had earlier filed an online RTI application bearing reg. no. CBODT/R/E/22/01782 dated 13.07.2022 which was subsequently transferred to this Directorate online via RTI Portal on 18.07.2022 bearing reg. no. DGIVN/R/T/22/00071 (copy enclosed). Vide the RTI application, the appellant had sought certain 10 CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 information/documents with respect to action taken on the complaint filed by him earlier before this Directorate and complete copy of the file notings thereof. The CPIO had duly disposed off the said RTI application on 16.08.2022 vide letter F. No. DGIT(Vig.)/RRT/06/2022/2976 (Copy enclosed) as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and order of the CPIO was duly uploaded on the RTI Portal on 16.08.2022.
3. However, the appellant Sh. R.R. Tripathy has filed complaint before the Hon'ble CIC stating that no reply with respect to the abovesaid RTI application has been received by him until today. It is available on record that the CPIO has duly disposed off the RTI application within the stipulated time as per provisions of RTI Act. Copy of the order furnished by the CPIO, RTI application filed by the appellant dated 13.07.2022 & action history of the RTI application.
28. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 are reproduced as under:
"In this regard, it is submitted that the appellant had earlier filed an online RTI application bearing reg. no. CBODT/R/E/22/01785 dated 13.07.2022 which was subsequently transferred to this Directorate online via RTI Portal on 18.07.2022 bearing reg. no. DGIVN/R/T/22/00074 (copy enclosed). Vide the RTI application, the appellant had sought certain information/documents with respect to action taken on the complaint filed by him earlier before this Directorate and complete copy of the file notings thereof. The CPIO had duly disposed off the said RTI application on 16.08.2022 vide letter F. No. DGIT(Vig.)/RRT/06/2022/2979 (Copy enclosed) as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and order of the CPIO was duly uploaded on the RTI Portal on 16.08.2022.
3. However, the appellant Sh. R.R. Tripathy has filed complaint before the Hon'ble CIC stating that no reply with respect to the abovesaid RTI application has been received by him until today. It is available on record that the CPIO has duly disposed off the RTI application within the stipulated time as per provisions of RTI Act. Copy of the order furnished by the CPIO, RTI 11 CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 application filed by the appellant dated 13.07.2022 & action history of the RTI application."
Decision
29. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondents and perusal of the records, notes that the Respondent has placed on record documentary evidence to establish that the RTI applications filed by the Complainant were duly responded to within the stipulated time period and that point-wise replies were furnished through the RTI online portal. The action history downloaded from the RTI portal corroborates the Respondent's submission that replies were uploaded and made available to the Complainant.
30. It is further observed that the Complainant, while filing the present complaints before the Commission, has alleged non-receipt of replies from the CPIO. However, the Complainant has failed to disclose the material fact that replies to his RTI applications had already been furnished online. Such suppression of a material fact strikes at the root of the complaint proceedings.
31. The Commission is of the considered view that a complainant approaching a quasi-judicial forum is expected to do so with clean hands and with full disclosure of relevant facts prior to filing the Complaint or at least till date of the hearing. In this case, the Complainant has done neither. The concealment of the receipt of replies already provided by the Respondent amounts to a misleading averment and reflects adversely on the bona fides of the Complainant.
32. The Commission observed that the present complaints were filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section 18 of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
12CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 "Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
33. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. It is noted that the Respondent has already replied to the above RTI applications. The Respondent has also filed written submissions where the complete factual position of the above cases was informed as per the records available with them. Moreover, the Complainant did not appear before the Commission despite service of notice to contest his cases. The Commission also notes that the Complainant did not avail the statutory remedy of filing a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act against the replies furnished by the CPIO, nor has he demonstrated any deliberate denial of information or mala fide intent on the part of the Respondent so as to attract the provisions of Section 18 of the RTI Act.
34. It is relevant to quote the observations made by 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 13 CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 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...."
35. The Commission finds no mala fide on part of the CPIO. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the CPIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant complaint.
36. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 2400 cases of the same Complainant against same and different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that 80 complaint cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Commission, like on several occasions in the past, again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his rights under the Right to Information Act in future.
37. The Respondent during the hearing submitted that the Complainant has not served a copy of the instant complaints upon the Respondent. The Commission would like to remind the Complainant of the fact that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to 14 CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 the opposite party is crucial for fairness, transparency, and due process in legal proceedings and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bona fide interest of the Appellant/Complainant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The requirement of advanced service is in accordance with the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the facts of filing a case in CIC, arguments of the Complainant and reason for discontentment. It has been the experience that where the Complainant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority has tried proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject or by providing revised and updated reply/information to the Complainant before the matter reaches for the hearing. This ultimately results in faster delivery of information, thus leading to a more efficient and effective Appeal/Complaint disposal. It also reduces the time, energy and efforts of the Commission and Respondent Public Authority in early disposal. It is in his own interest for the Complainant to serve an advance copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents.
38. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Commission finds no infirmity in the action of the Respondent. No case is made out for intervention of the Commission under the RTI Act, 2005.
The above-mentioned complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date 15 CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 16 CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630241, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638438, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638434, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638437 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/638428 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)