Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 18 July, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.(s):- CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613490-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/609417-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/619805-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/619765-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613485-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616640-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/609545-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/609711-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637150-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/634055-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/626787-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/632521-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616382-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/609714-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613480-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/618452-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613478-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/618419-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637370-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637652-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637227-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/633962-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/632173-BJ
Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy
.... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO & Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range - 1
Office of the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Range - 1 & 2, Central Revenue Building
Ravindra Path, Hazaribagh - 825301
2. CPIO & Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Range - 3, Office of the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Range - 3, Bokaro Sector - 1C/799
Bokaro Steel City - 827001, Jharkhand
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.07.2019
Date of Decision : 18.07.2019
Page 1 of 22
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613490-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 05.09.2017 CPIO's response 11.10.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh, regarding the total number of cases in which penalty u/s 271F of the IT Act, was imposed during the month of August, 2017 and the total amount of penalty imposed in the same.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 11.10.2017, responded to the queries of the Complainant point- wise, wherein it was stated that the number of cases in which penalty u/s 271F of the IT Act, was imposed during the month of August, 2017 and the total amount of penalty imposed therein, was NIL. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/609417-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 04.08.2017 CPIO's response 11.10.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh, regarding the total number of cases in which penalty u/s 271F of the IT Act, had been imposed during the month of July, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 11.10.2017, stated that the number of cases in which penalty u/s 271F of the IT Act, had been imposed during the month of July, 2017, was NIL. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/619805-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 08.09.2017
CPIO's response 11.10.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
Page 2 of 22
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of JCIT, Range-3, Bokaro, regarding the total number of cases in which penalty u/s 271F of the IT Act, was imposed during the month of August, 2017 and the total amount of penalty imposed in the same.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 11.10.2017, responded to the queries of the Complainant point- wise, wherein it was stated that the number of cases in which penalty u/s 271F of the IT Act, was imposed during the month of August, 2017 and the total amount of penalty imposed therein, was NIL. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 4 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/619765-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 08.09.2017 CPIO's response 10.10.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of JCIT, Range-3, Bokaro, regarding the total number of cases in which penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act, was imposed during the month of August, 2017 and the total amount of penalty imposed in the same.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 10.10.2017, responded to the queries of the Complainant point- wise, wherein for point no. 01, it was stated that no penalty order under Section 271D of the IT Act, 1961, was passed in August, 2017, and for point 02, stated that "the question did not arise". Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 5 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613485-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 05.09.2017
CPIO's response 11.10.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
Page 3 of 22
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh, regarding the total number of cases in which penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act, was imposed during the month of August, 2017 and the total amount of penalty imposed in the same.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 11.10.2017, responded to the queries of the Complainant point- wise, wherein it was stated that the total number of cases in which penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act, was imposed during the month of August, 2017 and the total amount of penalty imposed therein, was NIL. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 6 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616640-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 13.11.2017 CPIO's response 20.12.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh, regarding the number of cases in which penalty u/s 271D of IT Act, had been imposed during the month of October, 2017 and the amount of penalty imposed in the same.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.12.2017, responded to the queries of the Complainant point- wise, wherein it was stated that the number of cases in which penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act, had been imposed during the month of October, 2017 and the total amount of penalty imposed therein, was NIL. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 7 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/609545-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 17.08.2017 CPIO's response 10.10.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh, regarding the total number of cases in which penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act, had been imposed during the month of July, 2017.Page 4 of 22
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 10.10.2017, stated that the total number of cases in which penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act, had been imposed during the month of July, 2017, was NIL. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 8 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/609711-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 17.08.2017 CPIO's response 11.10.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT-1 , Hazaribagh, regarding the total amount of Arrear Demand collectible as on 01.07.2017 and the total amount collected out of the same during the month of July, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 11.10.2017, stated that the total amount of Arrear Demand collectible as on 01.07.2017 was Rs 103.26 lakhs and the total amount collected out of the same during the month of July, 2017 was Rs 35.09 lakhs. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 9 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637150-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 04.02.2018 CPIO's response 06.03.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the total Arrear Tax Demand outstanding as on 01.01.2018 and the total tax collected out of the same during the month of January, 2018.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 06.03.2018, provided a point-wise response to the Complainant wherein for point no. 01, it was stated that the total Arrear Tax Demand outstanding as on 01.01.2018 was Rs 2949.83 lakhs and the tax collected out of the same during the month of January, 2018 was Rs 19.91 lakhs. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory reply, the Complainant approached the Commission.Page 5 of 22
RTI - 10 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/634055-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 03.07.2018 CPIO's response 17.08.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the total Arrear Tax Demand outstanding as on 01.06.2018 and the total tax collected out of the same during the month of June, 2018.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 17.08.2018, provided a response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 11 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/626787-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 01.01.2018 CPIO's response 02.02.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the total Arrear Tax Demand outstanding as on 01.11.2017 and the total tax collected out of the same during the month of November, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 02.02.2018, provided a point-wise response to the Complainant wherein for point no. 01, it was stated that the total Arrear Tax Demand outstanding as on 01.11.2017 was Rs 3247.52 lakhs and the total tax collected out of the same during the month of November, 2017 was Rs 61.45 lakhs. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission RTI - 12 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/632521-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 04.01.2018 CPIO's response 09.02.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil Page 6 of 22 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the total Arrear Tax Demand outstanding as on 01.12.2017 and the total tax collected out of the same during the month of December, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 09.02.2018, provided a point-wise response to the Complainant wherein for point no. 01, it was stated that the total Arrear Tax Demand outstanding as on 01.12.2017 was Rs 6564.80 lakhs and the total tax collected out of the same during the month of December, 2017 was Rs 7.6 lakhs. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory reply, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 13 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616382-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 15.11.2017 CPIO's response 20.12.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the total Arrear Tax Demand outstanding as on 01.10.2017 and the total tax collected out of the same during the month of October, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.12.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Complainant wherein for point no. 01, it was stated that the total Arrear Tax Demand outstanding as on 01.10.2017 was Rs 5914.34 lakhs and the total tax collected out of the same during the month of October, 2017 was Rs 45.28 lakhs. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 14 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/609714-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 17.08.2017 CPIO's response 11.10.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT-1 Hazaribagh regarding total amount of refund issued during the month of July, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 11.10.2017 provided the details of the amount of refund issued during the month of July, 2017. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
Page 7 of 22
RTI - 15 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613480-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 05.09.2017
CPIO's response 11.10.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding JCIT-1, Hazaribagh and desired the details of the total number of cases in which re-opening proceedings were initiated on account of having joint account in bank as second account holder during the month of August, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 11.10.2017, replied that the total no. of cases in which re-opening proceedings were initiated on account of having joint account in bank as second account holder during the month of August, 2017 is NIL. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 16 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/618452-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 08.09.2017 CPIO's response 10.10.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT-3,Bokaro and desired the details of the total number of cases in which reopening proceedings were initiated on account of having joint bank account in bank as second holder during the month of August,2017.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 10.10.2017 replied with the remark "Nil". Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 17 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613478-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 03.09.2017
CPIO's response 11.10.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
Page 8 of 22
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding JCIT-1 Hazaribagh and desired the details of the total number of cases in which AIR information had been received during the month of August, 2017 and action taken on AIR received.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 11.10.2017 provided a point wise response to the Complainant with the remark "Nil". Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 18 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/618419-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 08.09.2017 CPIO's response 11.10.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the JCIT-3 Bokaro and desired of the total number of cases in which AIR information was received during the month of August, 2017 and action taken on AIR received as above.
The CPIO vide its reply dated 11.10.2017 provided a point wise response to the Complainant informing him that no such data was maintained at their office. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 19 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637370-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 13.02.2018 CPIO's response 09.03.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding JCIT, Range-2, Hazaribagh and desired the details of the total number of cases in which surveys were conducted during the month of January,2018 and total amount of tax disclosed.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 09.03.2018 provided a point wise response to the Complainant informing him about the number of cases in which surveys were conducted during the month of January, 2018 and total amount of tax disclosed. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory reply, the Complainant approached the Commission.
Page 9 of 22
RTI - 20 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637652-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 19.02.2018
CPIO's response 13.03.2018
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding JCIT, Range-3, Bokaro regarding the number of cases in which surveys were conducted during the month of January,2018 and amount of tax disclosed.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 13.03.2018 provided a point wise response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory reply, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 21 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637227-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 05.02.2018 CPIO's response 06.03.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding JCIT-1, Hazaribagh and desired the details of the total number of cases in which surveys were conducted during the month of January,2018 and total amount of tax disclosed.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 06.03.2018, provided a point wise response to the Complainant informing him about the details of the surveys conducted during January, 2018 and the amount of tax disclosed. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory reply, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 22 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/633962-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 02.07.2018
CPIO's response 25.07.2018
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
Page 10 of 22
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT- 2, Hazaribagh regarding number of cases in which surveys were conducted during the month of May,2018 and amount of tax disclosed in the same.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 25.07.2018, replied with the remark Nil. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory reply, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 23 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/632173-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 01.01.2018 CPIO's response 02.02.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT - 1, Hazaribagh on 02 points regarding total number of cases in which survey were conducted during the month of November 2017 and amount of tax disclosed in the same .
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 02.02.2018 provided a point wise response to the Complainant with the remark Nil. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Sanjib Kumar Roy, JCIT & CPIO and Mr. Anand Kumar Paswan, Income Tax Inspector through VC;
The Complainant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Hariharan, Network Engineer, NIC studio at Vellore confirmed the absence of the Complainant. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Complainant dated 18.07.2019, wherein it was stated that due to several appointments with Doctors at CMCH Vellore at the same time, he was unable to attend to these cases in person. Thus, while submitting that hearing may be completed on the basis of his submissions already sent earlier he prayed for initiation of penal action against the CPIO. It was noted that the Complainant vide his e-mail dated 12.07.2019, had authorized Shri Varun Krishna, resident of New Delhi to represent him in the hearings from 15th to 18th July, 2019 but he too remained absent. The Commission was in receipt of another written submission from the Complainant dated 17.07.2019, wherein at the outset attention of the Commission was drawn to sending of copy of written submission by Mr. S.K. Roy, CPIO just one day before the date of hearing on 18.07.2019. It was further stated that the CPIO had taken oath to disobey the provisions of the RTI Act and was in a habit of sending replies to RTI applications beyond the Page 11 of 22 stipulated time. Out of the 23 cases fixed for hearing on 18.07.2019, only 4 applications were replied within time and remaining 19 cases were replied much beyond the time limit under the RTI Act. It was therefore prayed that penalty proceedings u/s 20 (1) may be initiated against the CPIO. It was also prayed that Mr. S.K. Roy may be asked to submit an affidavit for technical errors he experienced while replying to his RTI requests with respect to nature of default and period of default. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that during the transition period from offline to online mode of responding to RTI applications w.e.f. September, 2017 to April 2018, they encountered certain difficulties to access the RTI applications which entailed the delay in certain cases. However, the Respondent further submitted that the technical faults projected by him did not finally get resolved in the quarter ending April, 2018 and that it continues till date. He offered himself to be subjected to a detailed enquiry into his submissions if considered inappropriate, wrong or unsatisfactory either by the Commission or the Complainant. It was argued by the Respondent that in several matters, the text of the Complaint focused on unsatisfactory and misleading response whereas the Complainant pressed for action against the Respondent for delay in receiving a response. In earlier reply the Complainant had repeatedly argued that where "misleading replies" had been stated to have been received, he attributed the text to the software used by the Commission which did not contain any option for recording "delay" and hence submitted citing misleading reply. He consistently maintained that there was a delay in submission of replies and that the Respondent Public Authority was squarely responsible for the same. The Respondent also referred to Complaint No(s). CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637150-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/632521-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637370-BJ,CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637652-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637227- BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/633962-BJ to impress the point that the Complainant on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures had prayed for imposition of penalty on the ground that a misleading and unsatisfactory response was provided to him and that in his verbal deliberations at the hearing, he insisted that there was a palpable delay in providing a response which was contrary to the reasons cited in the Complaint. He also raised the issue of multiple RTI applications on similar matters being filed by the Complainant without any larger public interest which was resulting in disproportionate diversion of their meagre resources causing obstruction to their day to day working. In support of his contention, the Respondent also referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 and ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011. On being queried by the Commission regarding the steps initiated by them to address the issue of scarcity of staff in their Department, the Respondent stated that from time to time he had raised the issue in the Review Meetings before the senior officials who in turn expressed their inability to resolve the issue amicably. However, during the hearing held today, the Respondent expressed his willingness to provide inspection of all records desired by the Complainant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 on a mutually convenient date and time which will also ease the burden of the Public Authority in responding to multiple RTI applications on similar issues.
On a query from the Commission, the Respondent stated that the First Appeal was not filed in any of the 23 matters listed for hearing today. After being cautioned by the Commission, the Respondent was quick to endorse a copy of its written submissions though belatedly to the Complainant which was objected by him. The Commission again drew the attention of the Respondent to Para 4 of the notice of hearing wherein instructions were already incorporated to endorse a copy of its written submission to the opposite party forthwith which was repeatedly ignored by the Respondent.Page 12 of 22
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, Bokaro dated 10.07.2019 wherein action taken on each of these matters in Complaint No(s).
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/619805, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/618419, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/618452, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/619765 was provided. Furthermore, attention of the Commission was drawn towards the previous decisions of it in Complaint No(s). CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606187-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606185-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606292-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606189-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606285-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606280-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606203-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606346-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606362-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606197-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606201-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606204-BJ Dated 04-05-2018 wherein the reply of the CPIO was delayed due to technical fault but no intervention was made by the Commission. A reference was also made to the Complaints made before the Commission which was settled vide orders in CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606192-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606211-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606209-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604697-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/605349-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606184-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606299-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606203-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606346-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606362-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606197-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606201-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606204-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606183-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606298-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606206-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606300-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/605276-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/605350-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606205-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606301-BJ dated 04.05.2018 and 14.05.2019. It was further stated that in Complaint No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/634056-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616642-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/634057 (heard on 15.07.2019) and CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/632520 (heard on 17.07.2019), the online RTI petitions were not available in the code of the CPIO in system. This was an example of technical fault which is beyond the control of the CPIO. Besides, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/634058-BJ dated 18.06.2019 containing the RTI online application i.e. RTI No.-CCAPT/R/2018/50068 Dt.03.07.2018 did not match with the available RTI online petitions bearing same number but with different date i.e. 30.01.2018. This was also an example of technical fault which is beyond the control of the CPIO. In view of the above, it was prayed that since the reply had been sent to the Complainant and the delay was due to technical fault and unavoidable circumstances, hence the same may be considered. However, the Complainant pressed for penal action against the Respondent citing malafide, intentional and deliberate delay.
Furthermore, similar cases relating to Section 271F were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Complaint/Appeal No.:- CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604697-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/605349-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606184-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606299-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606203-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606346-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606362-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606183-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606298-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606206-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606300-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606197-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606201-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606204-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/605276-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/605350-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606205-BJ+ Page 13 of 22 CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606301-BJ dated 04.05.2018; CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140440-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140450-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140455-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140458-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141727-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140461-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141742-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140448-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140457-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140469-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140782-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141739-BJ dated 27.03.2018, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111734-BJ+ CIC/CCITP/C /2017/111439-BJ+ CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111437-BJ+ CIC/CCITP/C/2017 /111438-BJ + CIC/CCABH/C/2017/126462-BJ dated 26.02.2018; Complaint No.:-
CIC/CCABH/C /2017/126451-BJ +CIC/CCABH/C/2017/126453-BJ+ CIC/CCABH/C/ 2017/126454-BJ+ CIC/CCABH/C/2017/126457-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/ 2017/141735-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141737-BJ+ CIC/COIT2 /C/2017/ 132115- BJ+CIC/DITIN/C/2017/131429-BJ+ CIC/DITIN/C/2017 /132117-BJ dated 20.03.2018, etc. etc. The Commission observed that similar cases relating to imposition of penalty u/s 271D were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Complaint No.:- CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604697-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/605349-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606184-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606299-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606203-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606346-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606362-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606183-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606298-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606206-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606300-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606197-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606201-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606204-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/605276-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/605350-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606205-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606301-BJ dated 04.05.2018; CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140440-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140450-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140455-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140458-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141727-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140461-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141742-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140448-BJ+CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140457-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140469-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140782-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141739-BJ dated 27.03.2018; CIC-CBDTD-C-2016-299252-BJ dated 21.07.2017, CIC/BS/C/2016/000396-BJ dated 20.06.2017, CIC/BS/C/2016/000136-BJ dated 08.06.2017 CIC/BS/C/2016/000305-BJ dated 05.04.2017 etc. etc. The Commission observed that similar matters in respect of Arrear Demand collectible was dealt with by it in Complaint/Appeal Nos.:- CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606209-BJ dated 04.05.2018; CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141721-BJ dated 03.04.2018, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140460- BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141743-BJ dated 27.03.2018, CIC/CCITL/C/2017/ 174924-BJ dated 20.03.2018, CIC/CCITD/C/2017/132171-BJ+ CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111434-BJ dated 09.03.2018;
CIC/CCITP/C/2017/ 111436-BJ + CIC/CCABH/C/2017/126464-BJ dated 26.02.2018; CIC/DITIN/C/2017/188273-BJ dated 15.12.2017; CIC/DITIN/C/2017 /194437-BJ dated 15.12.2017; CIC/ CBODT/C/2016/299244/BJ dated 31.07.2017; CIC/BS/C/2016/000121-BJ dated 08.06.2017; CIC/BS/C/2016/000111-BJ dated 08.06.2017; CIC/BS/C/2016/000183-BJ dated 17.05.2017; CIC/BS/C/2016/000218-BJ dated 17.05.2017 etc. etc. Similar matters wherein details of the number of cases in which total amount of refund was issued were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Complaint Nos.:-
CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606211-BJ dated 04.05.2018, CIC/CCABH/C/2017/126456-BJ+ Page 14 of 22 CIC/DGITP/C/2017/131478-BJ dated 20.03.2018, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111600-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111729-BJ dated 09.03.2018; CIC/CCITP/C/ 2017/111444-BJ + CIC/CCABH/C/2017/126463-BJ dated 26.02.2018; CIC/CCITP/C/2017 /111443-BJ+ CIC/CCABH/C/2017/ 126465-BJ dated 26.02.2018; CIC/BS/C/2016/000259-BJ dated 14.06.2017; CIC/BS/C/2016/000241-BJ dated 14.06.2017; CIC/BS/C/2016/000223-BJ dated 14.06.2017; CIC/BS/C/2016/000089-BJ dated 30.05.2017; CIC/BS/A/2016/000413-BJ dated 06.04.2017; CIC/BS/A/2016/000313-BJ dated 06.04.2017; CIC/BS/A/2016/000309-BJ dated 06.04.2017 CIC/BS/C/2016/000049-BJ dated 03.04.2017; CIC/BS/C/2016/000046-BJ dated 03.04.2017 The Commission also noted that similar matters wherein Complainant sought details regarding the number of cases in which re-opening proceedings were initiated on account of having joint account in bank as second account holder were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Complaint nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604449-BJ dated 03.04.2018, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140470-BJ dated 27.03.2018 and CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299243-BJ dated 11.08.2017.
It was noted that in matters in which AIR information was sought, were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Complaint Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604697-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/605349-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606184-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606299-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606203-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606346-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606362-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606197-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606201-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606204-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606183-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606298-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606206-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606300-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/605276-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/605350-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606205-BJ, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/606301-BJ dated 04.05.2018 CIC/DGITP/C/2017/141722-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141723-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604484-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604692-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141724-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604485-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604698-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604450-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604486-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604483-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604693-BJ dated 03.04.2018, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140440-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140450-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140455-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140458-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141727-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140461-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141742-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140448-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140457-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140469-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140782-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141739-BJ dated 27.03.2018, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/132844-BJ dated 20.03.2018 and CIC/CCCDZ/C/2017/112390-BJ dated 26.02.2018 CIC/DITIN/C/2017/182197-BJ dated 15.12.2017 and in Complaint nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111736-BJ + CIC/DITIN/C/2017/ 195090-BJ etc. The Commission observed that similar matters relating to the number of surveys conducted by the Respondent, were heard and adjudicated in Complaint/Appeal No(s):
CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604482-BJ dated 04.05.2018, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604460-BJ dated Page 15 of 22 03.04.2018, CIC/CCABH/C/2017/126452-BJ dated 20.03.2018; CIC/CBODT/C/2016 /300150/BJ dated 31.07.2017; and CIC/BS/C/2016/000130-BJ dated 08.06.2017.
However, it was noted that the decision of the Commission was based on the tone and tenor of the subject matter dealt with in the aforesaid cases and the response furnished by the Respondent keeping in view the contextual framework of the issues deliberated in these matters. In the light of discussion in the instant cases and the written submissions wherever available, the Respondent enabled himself to be armed with a specific response to the queries raised by the Complainant and consistently argued about the Complainant not filing First Appeal in accordance with Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to remedy his grievance, if any. The Complainant prayed for imposition of penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."Page 16 of 22
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission however observed that the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates time limits in its various provisions relating to responding to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first appeal to ensure that a culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of the democracy gets established. This was recognised by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacunae in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamounts to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/ faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Moreover, the Commission noted that the Complainant had filed multiple RTI applications before the Public Authority and more than 370 Complaints/ Appeals (approx) had been decided by this bench, till date.
Furthermore, it was observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, Page 17 of 22 falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
A reference can also be made to the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kishan Lal Gera vs. State Information Commission, Haryana and Ors. CWP No. 20192 of 2014 dated 16.10.2014 wherein the Court while imposing cost of Rs. 30,000/- on the petitioner the Court held as under:
"However, petitioner still did not feel satisfied. That is why instant writ petition, which is frivolous on the face of it, has been filed before this Court. Petitioner seems to be obsessed with his rights only and is showing total ignorance towards his duties. Further, petitioner is claiming himself to be above board in all respect, whereas he is not exercising even the minimum possible restraint on himself, while leveling ill founded and serious allegations against respondent authorities. In his petition, he has said more than once that respondent No.3 is a habitual offender but he did not implead him by name, so that he may defend himself against allegations of malafide. In view of the abovesaid factual background, it is unhesitatingly held that petitioner is neither a bonafide litigant nor he had any cause of action to file and maintain instant writ petition, which amounts to blatant misuse of process of law and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
................. Consequently, instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs which are quantified at `30,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the Secretary, Haryana State Legal Services Authority Haryana, within three months from today."
The Commission further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of TEHSEEN POONAWALLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 19 OF 2018 dated 19th April, 2018 of Para 73, wherein in the context of Public Interest Litigation it was held as under:-
The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the Rule of law. This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate Page 18 of 22 votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the Rule of law. There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space.
The Commission further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMITI vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. dated 17th April, 2014 in CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4593-4594 OF 2014 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOs. 28021-28022 OF 2010 of Para 49, wherein it was held as under:-
"The Judiciary should deal with the misuse of Public Interest Litigation with iron hand. If the Public Interest Litigation is permitted to be misused the very purpose for which it is conceived, namely to come to the rescue of the poor and down trodden will be defeated. The Courts should discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and the person who misuses the forum should be made accountable for it. In the realm of Public Interest Litigation, the Courts while protecting the larger public interest involved, should at the same time have to look at the effective way in which the relief can be granted to the people, whose rights are adversely affected or at stake. When their interest can be protected and the controversy or the dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created under a particular statute, the parties should be relegated to the appropriate forum, instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation."
With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on:
01.06.2012) wherein it was held:
" 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist 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 showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has Page 19 of 22 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. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"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 Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of 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."
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 Page 20 of 22 so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission also observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain v. V.P. Pandey, CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4785/ 2017 dated 10.10.2017 adjudicated on the correctness of an order of the Commission dated 17.04.2017 whereby the Respondent was cautioned to exercise due care in future and to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished to the RTI applicants. It was decided that:
"2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the CIC had accepted that there was a delay in providing the necessary information to the petitioner, the CIC had not imposed the penalty as required under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is well settled that imposing of the penalty is a discretionary measure. In Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 a division bench of this Court had considered the question whether the levy of penalty was discretionary and held as under..........
3. In this case it is apparent that the CIC had in its discretion considered that a order cautioning the CPIO would be sufficient. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of discretion."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of R.K. Jain v. CIC and Anr. in W.P.(C) 4152/2017 dated 10.10.2017 had held as under:
"5. The question whether the CIC had the discretion to restrict the penalty or whether penalty as provided under Section 20 of the Act is mandatory, is no longer res integra. The said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 and the relevant extract of the said decision is set out below....
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the CIC. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it was observed by the Commission that although replies had been provided by the Respondent Public Authority but there was a palpable ignorance about the maintenance of records pertaining to the Page 21 of 22 RTI applications and its replies thereby causing inconvenience not only to the Complainant but also to the Respondent himself. Attributing the delay in responding to the RTI applications within the specific timelines stipulated in the RTI Act, 2005 to technical faults tantamounts to disrespecting the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in letter and spirit. Admittedly, the Respondent himself desired an inquiry to be conducted by an appropriate authority to identify the problems experienced in the automation of the RTI regime. Mapping the areas of technical weaknesses like software defects, digitizing its records, updation of the website of the Respondent Public Authority etc. would be advisable to facilitate the easy flow of information to such applicants which hitherto had been an impediment faced by the Respondent. The Commission therefore instructs the Chairman, CBDT to depute an official of an appropriate seniority to examine and analyze the glitches in the technical software so as to initiate measures for its rectification within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance of the said decision should necessarily be intimated to the Complainant under endorsement to the Commission.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Complaints stand disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 18.07.2019 Copy to:-
1. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001
2. The Chairman, CBDT, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi -
110001 Page 22 of 22