Central Information Commission
Vijay Prakash Gupta vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 20 October, 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/CCITB/A/2021/145171
Vijay Prakash Gupta ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Assistant
Commissioner of Central Tax,
North Division-8, Bangalore
North Commissionerate, RTI
Cell, 59, HMT Bhavan, Ballary
Road, Bangalore-560032,
Karnataka. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/10/2022
Date of Decision : 18/10/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/06/2021
CPIO replied on : 22/06/2021
First appeal filed on : 28/06/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 22/07/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11/10/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.06.2021 seeking the following information:1
(a) "Please provide me the 'name of the proprietor' of M/s. Sanjay Sahu, Bengaluru as per your records.
(b) Please provide me the 'business address' of M/s. Sanjay Sahu, Bengaluru as per your records.
(c) Please provide me the address of the "additional place of business", 'if any' of M/s. Sanjay Sahu, Bengaluru as per your records.
(d) Please provide me the 'residential address' of the proprietor of M/s. Sanjay Sahu, Bengaluru as per your records.
(e) Please provide me the 'contact details' of M/s. Sanjay Sahu, Bengaluru as per your records.
(f) Please provide me information on the 'effective date of registration' of M/s. Sanjay Sahu, Bengaluru as per your records.
(g) Please provide me information on the 'present status' of registration of M/s. Sanjay Sahu, Bengaluru as per your records.
(h) If the answer to the query sought under point 3(iii)(g) is 'cancelled' please provide reasons for cancelling the registration."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 22.06.2021 stating as follows:-
"..........the details sought for by you in the said RTI application are available in the public domain on services.gst.gov.in.
Further, as per Section 8(j) of the RTI Act
(j) 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 unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
In view of the above, it is informed that the information sought in the cited RTI application, other than those available in the above GST portal are either not available or cannot be disclosed under the above mentioned section of the RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.06.2021. FAA's order dated 22.07.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
2Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Sunil Kumar Singh, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI Application and stated that 'prima facie the GST registration granted to M/s. Sanjay Sahu has been cancelled suo-moto by the commercial Taxes Department pursuant to Section 29(2) of the CGST/SGST Act' and therefore 'the requisite information outweighs privacy in larger public interest pertinently when public money is involved & the defaulting firm is being permitted to operate and run a parallel business in the name and style of Khana Khazana Express Restaurant under a different GSTIN No. 29DCYPS9564N2ZV warranting disclosure in the best interest of the society, public interest in transparency & accountability, to promote public understanding and to safeguard democratic process.' He further relied on a decision of the Central Information Commission in the case of Mr. Jagvesh Kumar Sharma vs. Joint Secretary (Home) & PIO, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Home (General) Department, New Delhi in File No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00993/SG/2219, decided on 16th March, 2009, wherein it was held that:
"The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' must be interpreted to mean the information must have some relationship to a Public activity. Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for personal' information from Citizens, and this is dearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, license or authorization, all these are public activities."
"Therefore, we can accept that disclosure of information which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by individuals, would not be an invasion on the privacy of an individual and there will only be a few exceptions to this rule which might relate to information which is obtained by a Public authority white using extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phonetapping. The applicant for a licence or permit or authorization gives 3 information of his own volition since he does not regard giving of this information as an intrusion on his privacy."
The CPIO reiterated the denial of the information as being personal information of a third party.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the reply provided by the CPIO is as per the provisions of the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the said exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is reproduced as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:
(j) 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 unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:.."
In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is further drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all 4 personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..." Emphasis Supplied Further, on the aspect of larger public interest, 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 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 5 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 the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Since there is no material on record to ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information in any of the above referred contexts, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
Having observed as above, the Commission upholds the denial of the information by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 6 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7