Central Information Commission
Karan Sharma vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 24 December, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग
नाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
नई द ली,
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second
Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2020/673061
Mr. Karan Sharma ... अपीलकता /Appellant
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
/Respondent
O/o. the Income Tax Officer, Ward
No. 2, Income Tax Department,
Rajsamand, Rajasthan
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 24-02-2020 FA : 06-04-2020 SA : 08-06-2020
08
CPIO : 09-03-2020 FAO : Not on Records Hearing: 20-12-2021
20
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2, Rajsamand, Rajasthan Rajasthan. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 09 09-03-2020 2020 had denied the information as sought by the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant appellan has filed Page 1 of 5 first appeal dated 06-04-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. No order of FAO is placed on records. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Shabeer, CPIO/ ITO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 24.02.2020.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 09.03.2020, they have informed the appellant that the information sought by him cannot be provided being personal information related to third party which is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. That there is no relationship with any public activity in disclosing such information.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought certified copies of the details of posting, disciplinary proceedings, investigation report, action taken by higher authority etc pertaining to Shri Mohit Bansal, Income Tax Officer. That the information sought by the appellant in the instant RTI Application is the personal information related to third party which is not permitted to be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. That the appellant has also failed to establish larger public interest in seeking such information.
7. In this context, the Commission relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment of UPSC vs. R.K. Jain, LPA No. 618/2012 dated 06.11.2012 wherein it was held as under:
".............the ratio of the dicta aforesaid of the Supreme Court is that the disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activities or public interest and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual."Page 2 of 5
8. The Commission further referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission vs. 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......"Another very significant provision of the Act is 8(1)(j). In terms of this provision, 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 would fall within the exempted category, unless the authority concerned is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. It is, therefore, to be understood clearly that it is a statutory exemption which must operate as a rule and only in exceptional cases would disclosure be permitted, that too, for reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to the test of larger public interest. It will not be in consonance with the spirit of these provisions, if in a mechanical manner, directions are passed by the appropriate authority to disclose information which may be protected in terms of the above provisions. All information which has come to the notice of or on record of a person holding fiduciary relationship with another and but for such capacity, such information would not have been provided to that authority, would normally need to be protected and would not be open to disclosure keeping the higher standards of integrity and confidentiality of such relationship. Such exemption would be available to such authority or department."
23. "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 color from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its Page 3 of 5 needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]."
24."The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to 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."
9. Notwithstanding above, the Commission is of the opinion that disclosing the place of posting would not cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Therefore, the Commission deems it fit to direct the respondent to provide a revised reply w.r.t the information sought at point no. 1 of the RTI Application vide which only the place of posting, if exists in their record, should be informed to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. That the rest of the information has rightly been denied by the respondent under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 vide their letter dated 09.03.2020 and same is being upheld by the Commission.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 20-12-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
O/o. the Income Tax Officer,
Ward No. 2, Income Tax Department,
Rajsamand, Rajasthan
2. Mr. Karan Sharma
Page 5 of 5