Central Information Commission
Vijendra Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 9 June, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCITD/A/2021/103029
Vijendra Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Dy. Commissioner of
Income Tax (Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad
Room No. 105, CGO Complex-2, Near Hapur
Chungi, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad - 201002,
Uttar Pradesh. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/05/2022
Date of Decision : 25/05/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12/02/2020
CPIO replied on : 12/03/2020
First appeal filed on : 03/10/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 21/10/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14/01/2021
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.02.2020 seeking the following information:
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 12.03.2020 stating as follows:-
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.10.2020. FAA's order dated 21.10.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: A K Gupta, Income Tax officer & CPIO present through intra-video conference.2
The Appellant stated that the denial of the information is not appropriate as information related to a charitable trust is a matter of public activity. He further stated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application suggesting his family has stakes in the trust or was involved in the trust activities as his deceased father was an erstwhile member of the trust and by way of devolution he is entitled to know about the affairs of the trust. He alleged that the present trustee is misusing their family land as well as portion of the land which belongs to the Government for making tax free rental income out of commercial shops being run out of the said land.
The CPIO submitted that the information was denied to the Appellant as being related to the personal information of a third party. Further addressing the allegations of the Appellant, the CPIO clarified that as per their records the averred trust has not claimed or been granted exemption for the last 7 years and nothing on record shows that it is a charitable trust.
Decision:
The Commission based on a detailed perusal of the facts on record and from the hearing proceedings is unable to comprehend the aspect of larger public interest being argued in the matter by the Appellant and in not inclined to intervene with the reply of the CPIO. It will not be out of place to observe that the contentions of the Appellant during the hearing were suggestive of a personal or family feud vis- à-vis the management of the averred trust much less a matter of public interest. Further, the Commission places reliance on a catena of judgments of the superior Courts on the import of "public interest" as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:
"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 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 3 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)]. Emphasis Supplied "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. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of 4 the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied As it follows, in the considered opinion of this bench the Appellant has not urged larger public interest in any of the above referred contexts, and therefore the Commission is not inclined to ascribe any credence to his contentions.
Having observed as above, the Commission upholds the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5