Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 29 April, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633086, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633085
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633082, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633081
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633075, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633072
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633070, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633038
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632662, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632657
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632696, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632695
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632692, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632691
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632690, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632687
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632677, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632671
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632669, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632656
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632655, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632654
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632650, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632647
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632644, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632643 and
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632642 (Twenty-seven cases)
RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY ....शिकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Commissioner of Income Tax,
Srijee Sadan, Thana Chowk,
Ramgarh, Jharkhand - 829122
CPIO,
Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1),
Sector 1, Bokaro Steel City,
Bokaro, Jharkhand - 827001 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24-04-2024
Date of Decision : 29-04-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Page 1 of 25
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 21-05-2022, 20-05-2022
CPIO replied on : 24-04-2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06-07-2023, 21-06-2023, 05-07-2023
The above-mentioned complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant is
common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being heard
together and disposed of through a common order to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings.
Information sought:
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633086 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Huge Bogus refund was issued amounting to more than 100 crores by all AOs of Bokaro Income Tax Office. Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro failed to issue reassessment notices within the time limit, as such many thousand cases got barred by limitations.
Kindly provide me with the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(3) were issued during FY 2014-15.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633085 Page 2 of 25 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Huge Bogus refund was issued amounting to more than 100 crores by all AOs of Bokaro Income Tax Office. Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro failed to issue reassessment notices within the time limit, as such many thousand cases got barred by limitations.
Kindly provide me with the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(3) were issued during FY 2015-16.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633082 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me with the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(3) were issued during FY 2016-17.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."Page 3 of 25
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633081 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me with the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(3) were issued during FY 2017-18.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633075 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me with the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(3) were issued during FY 2018-19.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."Page 4 of 25
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633072 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Huge Bogus refund was issued amounting to more than 100 crores by all AOs of Bokaro Income Tax Office. Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro failed to issue reassessment notices within the time limit, as such many thousand cases got barred by limitations.
Kindly provide me with the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(4) were issued during FY 2013-14.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633070 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(4) were issued during FY 2014-15.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be Page 5 of 25 disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/633038 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(4) were issued during FY 2015-16.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632662 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Huge Bogus refund was issued amounting to more than 100 crores by all AOs of Bokaro Income Tax Office. Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro failed to issue reassessment notices within the time limit, as such many thousand cases got barred by limitations.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(1) were issued during FY 2013-14.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."Page 6 of 25
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632657 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(1) were issued during FY 2014-15.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632696 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(4) were issued during FY 2016-17.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."Page 7 of 25
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632695 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(4) were issued during FY 2017-18.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632692 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(4) were issued during FY 2018-19.Page 8 of 25
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632691 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(5) were issued during FY 2013-14.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632690 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(5) were issued during FY 2014-15.Page 9 of 25
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632687 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(5) were issued during FY 2015-16.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632677 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(5) were issued during FY 2016-17.Page 10 of 25
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632671 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(5) were issued during FY 2017-18.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632669 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(5) were issued during FY 2018-19.Page 11 of 25
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632656 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(1) were issued during FY 2014-15.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632655 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(2) were issued during FY 2013-14.Page 12 of 25
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632654 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(2) were issued during FY 2014-15.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632650 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(2) were issued during FY 2015-16.Page 13 of 25
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632647 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(2) were issued during FY 2016-17.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632644 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(2) were issued during FY 2017-18.Page 14 of 25
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632643 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(2) were issued during FY 2017-18.
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632642 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of cases of Bogus refund in which notices for re-assessment were issued by ITO Ward-3(2) were issued during FY 2018-19.Page 15 of 25
2. ITR filed out of sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 24-04-2024 stating as under:
1. After merger of the 5 wards and a circle, the information sought is not readily available and for compilation of the same it would be disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. -do-."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaints.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri Asim Toppo, IT Officer/CPIO, Ramgarh and Shri Deepak Kumar, CPIO, Bokaro, appeared through video conference.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the complainant has filed complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 in respect of non- receipt of any reply from the erstwhile CPIO of Bokaro and erstwhile CPIO of Income Tax Officer, ward- 2(5) Ramgarh & CPIO-Income Tax Officer, ward 2(3) Ramgarh. The CPIO-ITO ward 2(5), Ramgarh & CPIO-Income Tax Officer, ward- 2(3) Ramgarh has been merged and form single CPIO ward 2(3), Ramgarh from 2020.
In view of the re-structuring of the respondent organization in 2020 and inaccessibility of the online RTI portal, the aforesaid RTI applications filed by the Complainant through online portal could not be located. However, on receipt of notice from the Commission efforts were made to locate the data so as to give an updated point-wise reply which has been provided to the Complainant vide letters all dated 24-04-2024 intimating the factual position as per the records available with them. They further prayed the Commission that delay caused in giving reply being unintentional be condoned in the interest of justice.Page 16 of 25
They informed that the complainant had filed numerous RTI applications which creates undue pressure to CPIOs, and lot of time was being wasted for preparing the reply of the RTI applications which has no public interest and repeated application with minor changes. They stated that no first appeals were filed by the complainant against any case. Further, the respondent had filed written submission dated 18.04.2024 and relevant para is being reproduced as under:
"It is to bring to the kind notice of Hon'ble Sir that the applicant is a regular RTI filer. Each and every office of Jharkhand region receives RTI from the applicant on a regular basis. It is also submitted that the applicant files RTI with central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, or with the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Bihar & Jharkhand, Patna, if he seeks information in respect of any particular Income tax office of Jharkhand region. All the Offices of Income tax situated in Bihar and Jharkhand work under the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Bihar & Jharkhand, Patna. As such, the RTI Application filed by him is circulated among all the offices of Jharkhand region and every CPIO has to pass an order in this respect. The majority of reply remains, "No such case pertains to this office/there is no such case in respect of this" since does not relate with that office.
It is humbly reiterated that we have been assigned with several time barring works, which involves huge revenue. As such, every Income tax authority remains busy in discharging these income tax proceedings involving huge revenue, which is a work of national importance. In this regard, kind attention of respected sir is drawn towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (SLP No. 7526/2009, Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has exhaustively explained different sections, their meaning and scope of RTI Act. In the para 37, Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated:
"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, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should be converted a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving Page 17 of 25 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 the applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under RTI Act and the pressure of the authority under RTI Act should not lead to employee of public authorities prioritizing 'furnishing information', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
It is also to bring to the kind information of Hon'ble sir that the said RTI has already been replied by our many offices. The applicant has been provided with the information he had sought vide the impugned RTI application from ITO, Ward-2(3), Ramgarh. It is humbly submitted that filing of numerous RTI applications seeking reply of the same nature of information by the complainant has been done to pressurize the public authority into acceding to his request for similar nature of information. The Hon'ble CIC in his order dated 28.12.2022 has also observed the attitude of the complainant. However, every CPIO has replied his all RTI applications after due application of mind and within the meaning of Section of RTI Act without any mala-fide intention."
Decision The Commission, after adverting the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the respondents have provided point-wise reply to the complainant vide letters all dated 24-04-2024. The respondent submitted that replies were given to the complainant as per the records available with them. The Commission further observes that there is a substantial delay in providing replies to the Complainant on the above-mentioned RTI applications. In this regard, the Respondent, during the hearing, informed that due to some technical reasons owing to merging of two concerned Wards and inaccessibility of the online RTI portal, the above-mentioned RTI applications were not attended within the mandated period. The Respondent apologized for the same and assured that such lapses would not recur in future.
The Commission further observes that the Complainant has not filed any first appeal or Second Appeal in the above-mentioned cases as also in all cases adjudicated by this bench so far, and reasons for the same could not be ascertained as he was not present before the Commission despite notice. In a Page 18 of 25 complaint case, the Commission cannot give any relief for information under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only restricted role lies is to adjudicate whether the information has been malafidely denied by the CPIO or undue hindrance has been caused by the Respondent. It is noteworthy that the Complainant was not present before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondents and further agitate the matter.
The Commission is not inclined to accept the prayer of the Complainant to impose penalty and for recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned CPIOs in the absence of any mala fide on part of the respondent. The conduct of the Complainant shows his intention to pressurize the CPIO with the fear of penal action than actual delivery of information to him.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1600 cases of the same Complainant against same/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 a total number of 112 complaints cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing and the same have been heard together simultaneously. 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 apparently 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.
Here, the Commission would also like to recall its earlier observations made in bunch matter of the same complainant in case File Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2021/630320 and Others decided on 21.02.2024; and CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/659908 and Others decided on 23.02.2024 wherein it was held as under -
"....the Commission finds it pertinent to mention that today 100 Complaints of the Complainant are being heard so that he does not have to appear frequently in the hearing on different dates and his time and resource are saved besides saving him from Page 19 of 25 inconvenience. On one hand, the Commission is devoting very substantive time on his cases, but the Complainant by choosing to be absent in the hearing, has adopted a very casual, in fact, irresponsible act.
The scope of adjudication in the above-mentioned complaints filed under Section 18 of RTI Act, 2005 is limited to ascertaining whether the information has been denied with any mala fide intention or without any reasonable cause by the Respondent. The Commission observes that firstly, the replies given by the Respondent on above-mentioned RTI applications are within the stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Secondly, the information available on record has already been provided to the Complainant.
The Complainant in his above-mentioned complaints has not explained the deficiency in the information provided. The Commission further observed that merely stating that the reply given is not satisfactory is not sufficient grounds to take action against the Respondent under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
Regarding imposition of penalty to the CPIO/PIO under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs. WP(C) 3114/2007 vide order dated 03.12.2007 held that:
"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 4 information officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of the 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....."
Emphasis supplied Page 20 of 25 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 so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it." In view of the above, the Commission finds that there is no mala fide on part of the respondent while replying to the RTI application. That being so, and in the absence of any merit in the complaint, the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1200 cases of the same Complainant against same/another Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Complaints listed for today's hearing have been heard together along with other 74 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 apparently 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 citizen. It appears that the complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
It appears that the Complainant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter-productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Page 21 of 25 Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are 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 avoid 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 matters, 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 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 our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious and repetitive litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI Page 22 of 25 applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that 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....."
Emphasis supplied The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar observations:
"....... This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...37. ............................ 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 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..."
Emphasis supplied xxx Page 23 of 25 In view of this, the Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated.
Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated. The Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter. "
The Complainant has not been judicious in the use of RTI Act and has been using it as a tool to harass the Public Authority. The Complainant is therefore cautioned to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner."
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the Complainant as he is not abiding by the repetitive advice of the Commission and filing repetitive similar RTI Applications which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -
Page 24 of 25"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
In view of the above-said observations and the replies having been given, the Commission finds no mala fide on part of the CPIOs in replying to the RTI applications. Further, the Commission again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future.
With these observations, the instant Complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्ि) Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाणणत सत्यापित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 25 of 25 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)