Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 31 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos.: (Total 22 cases)
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630047 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630206
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630200 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631180
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/628401 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629196
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630073 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630203
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630494 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630495
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630496 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631147
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631156 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631167
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631193 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/636611
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/640042 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644603
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644605 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644607
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644608 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630246
RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY ....शिकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Revenue Building, 5A Main Road,
Ranchi - 834001 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.05.2024
Date of Decision : 31.05.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Page 1 of 37
The above-mentioned Complaints have been clubbed together for the sake of
brevity and disposal as these are based on similar RTI Applications of the
same Complainant.
Relevant facts emerging from complaints:
RTI application filed on : 03.07.2020, 11.09.2020, 07.10.2020,
18.02.2021
CPIO replied on : 15.02.2022, 21.02.2022, 28.02.2022
21.05.2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2023, 20.06.2023
(1) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630047
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Some of the officers and staff of Income Tax Department are managing their posting at a particular field station for a long time, some for more than 20 years. This gives rise to corruption and leakage of vital information to local taxpayers. Some of the officers who started their job as clerks remained on the same station even after promotions in different cadres and being posted for a very short time to other stations for an eye wash.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of offers/Staff whose total stay at a single station is more than 15 years in all cadres as on 26-06-2020 (For all CCIT Charges).
2. Number of offers/Staff whose total stay at a single station is more than 20 years in all cadres as on 26-06-2020 (For all CCIT Charges)."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
"Points No. 1 & 2: Desired information may be treated as Nil."
(2) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630200 Page 2 of 37 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Total number of RTI Applications received in the office of CCIT, Ranchi during the financial year 2012-13.
2. Total number of applications in which information were rejected u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as of Sl. No. 1 above."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
"Points No. 1 & 2: The period for which the information is sought is beyond the maximum period for which records are maintained i.e.8 years, Hence the same is not available ."
(3) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630206 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Total number of RTI Applications received in the office of CCIT, Ranchi during the financial year 2011-12.
2. Total number of applications in which information were rejected u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as of Sl. No. 1 above."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 22.05.2024 by stating as under -
"Points No. 1 & 2. The desired information is treated is Nil."
(4) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631180 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 30.12.2021 seeking the following information:Page 3 of 37
"Kindly refer to my complaint in respect of Mr. PK Mondal, Addl CIT. An amount of Rs.1000/- has been imposed on him by CIC for his negligent and casual approach towards his official discharge of duties.
Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Action taken on my complaint sent through e-mail ([email protected]) on 13/01/2021 at 02.03 pm.
2. Complete file noting involving action taken as above."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
1. No email has been received on the official mail id of this office ([email protected] ). Further, it is also not mentioned that on which mail id the said complain has been made.
2. NA."
(5) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/628401 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2019 seeking the following information:
"A huge sum of bogus and illegal IT Refund has been issued to Officers and Staff of Bokaro Steel Plant during the financial year 2010-11 to 2015-16 by not adding perks to the salary income of the officers/employees, whereas tax was deducted on both the income. This resulted in huge bogus refund as while filing ITR Perks income was excluded on account of not being reflected in 26 AS. Information has also been received from the Durgapur Steel Plant wherein it has been stated that 1840 not. of executives of Durgapur Steel Plant have received Rs.70,64,0695/- as perquisites during the financial year 2010-11. (Copy Enclosed) Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Total amount of Perks paid to Officials of MECON Ltd. and Tax deducted on Perks paid to the executives during F.Y.2011-12.
2. Number of cases in which amount of Perks has not been included in the salary income resulting in IT refund.
3. Total amount of refund granted as at sl.2 above."Page 4 of 37
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
"1, 2. Nil
3. NA"
(6) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629196 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.01.2020 seeking the following information:
"Mr. BK Singh, DCIT, Bokaro illegally issued five number of notices u/s 148 of the IT Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13 to Param ji Alias His Holiness (PAHH) who died on 02-06-2009 out due to severe harassment, torture, and extortion by then ACIT Mr. Sonbhadra, Then Addl. CIT, Mr. Munda and then CIT, Vedanand Jha. Out of five notices, four of them are in my possession. Mr. Singh was duly informed about the demise of PAHH, although he is already aware of this fact. But the left-out motive of extortion from PAHH by his predecessor and his seniors forced Mr. BK Singh to take illegal steps by issuing notices u/s 148 to the same deceased person that took five in numbers. Even after being in the knowledge of Mr. BK Singh, he completed assessment for the above assessment year instead of dropping the proceedings is a great matter of concern.
Kindly provide me with the following information:
1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2013-14.
2. Name of the deceased assesses as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 24.02.2024 by stating as under -
"1. Nil and 2. NA"
(7) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630073 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information.Page 5 of 37
1. Total number of RTI Applications received in the office of CCIT, Ranchi during the financial year 2012-13.
2. Total number of applications in which information were rejected u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as of Sl. No. 1 above."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
"Points No. 1 & 2: The period for which the information is sought is beyond the maximum period for which records are maintained i.e.8 years, Hence the same is not available ."
(8) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630203 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Total number of RTI Applications received in the office of CCIT, Ranchi during the financial year 2011-12.
2. Total number of applications in which information were rejected u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as of Sl. No. 1 above."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
"Points No. 1 & 2: The period for which the information is sought is beyond the maximum period for which records are maintained i.e.8 years, Hence the same is not available ."
(9) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630494 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.06.2021 seeking the following information:
"Kindly find attached herewith order of CIC vide No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2019/652924.
Kindly provide me with the following information.Page 6 of 37
1. Nature of Administrative Action taken against Mr. Neeraj Rastogi, in view of CIC order as above.
2. Copy of all correspondences to Mr. Neeraj Rastogi by his controlling officer until today."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
"Points No. 1: The officer has been verbally cautioned to be careful in furnishing reply with reference to the RTI Act.
2: The information sought relates between employer and employee, hence cannot be given. It is also covered under Rule 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 ."
(10) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630495 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.08.2021 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to the attached order of Hon. CIC, wherein CCIT, Ranchi was directed to fix responsibility in the matter of issue of bogus refund at Bokaro on account of non-inclusion of perks in the salary income of Officers and Staff of Bokaro Steel Plant. However, no responsibility has been fixed on the guilty officers as directed.
Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Name and designation of officers of Bokaro Income Tax Office against whom responsibility has been fixed by CCIT, Ranchi.
2. Copy of complete file noting involving fixing of responsibility as above."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
1. "After implementation of faceless scheme in the Department (w.e.f.14.08.2020), the charge of CCIT, Ranchi ceased to exist and the jurisdiction over cases of Bokaro Income Tax office vests with PCIT, Dhanbad. Hence details are not available with the charge of PCIT, Ranchi.
Page 7 of 372. NA"
(11) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630496 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.08.2021 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to the attached order of Hon. CIC, wherein CCIT, Ranchi was directed to fix responsibility in the matter of issue of bogus refund at Bokaro on account of non-inclusion of perks in the salary income of Officers and Staff of Bokaro Steel Plant. However, no responsibility has been fixed on the guilty officers as directed.
Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Name and designation of officers of Bokaro Income Tax Office against whom responsibility has been fixed by CCIT, Ranchi.
2. Copy of complete file noting involving fixing of responsibility as above."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
"1. After implementation of faceless scheme in the Department (w.e.f.14.08.2020),the charge of CCIT, Ranchi ceased to exist and the jurisdiction over cases of Bokaro Income Tax office vests with PCIT, Dhanbad. Hence details are not available with the charge of PCIT, Ranchi.
2. NA"
(12) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631147 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2021 seeking the following information:
"Huge bogus refund was issued to officers and employees of Bokaro Steel Plant on account of non-inclusion of Perks into salary income, whereas tax was deducted on both the amounts. These refunds were issued during the FYs 2009- 10,2010-11,2011-12,2012-13,2014-15 ,2015-16 and so on. Several complaints were made in this regard, but the corrupt CCIT Mr. V. Mahalingam gave false reports and closed my complaints on absurd and ridiculous grounds. The Page 8 of 37 Assessing Officers failed to issue timely notices u/s 148 of the I.T. Act for re- assessment which now became time barred.
Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Total number of cases in which bogus refund were issued to Assessees of Bokaro steel Plant for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
2. Total amount of bogus refund involved as at sl.1 above.
3. Total amount recovered as at sl.2 above until today.
4. Name and designation of all assessing officers as on 31/03/2016."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
"(1) No such record is maintained to segregate the month wise, year wise and amount wise number of bogus refund issued to assesses of Bokaro Steel Plant.
Further, no such provision has been made in the Departmental Software to search the bogus refund cases, hence, specific number of such cases is not possible to be provided. However, the sources of information for conducting enquiries and taking remedial measures u/s 147 or 154 in the cases of employees of Bokaro Steel Plant involving excess claim of refund was on the basis of verification and analysis done by the officers of the Department only and were divided in two parts. One of the sources of information were internal enquires conducted by the Assessing Officers and verified from Form 16 issued by the employer with the return of income filed by the assesse and the other part being information filtered /prepared by ADIT(System), Ranchi. The data were also obtained from the BSL authorities which were verified with the return of income filed by the employees of the BSL by not including the perquisites or reduced income were identified and remedial action u/s 154 and 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 were taken by the officers of the Department at Bokaro in all the years i.e. from financial year 2009-10 to 2017-18. (2) As discussed in para 1 above, (3) As discussed in para 1 above (4) (i) Mr. Aron Kachhap, DCIT; (ii) Mr. K.K.Sinha, ITO; (iii) Ms Dewanti Das, ITO;
(iv) Mr. C.B.Sharma; ITO (v) Mr. S.C.Majumdar, ITO."
(13) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631156 Page 9 of 37 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.11.2021 seeking the following information:
"Mr PK Mondal, Adds CIT was transferred to WB Charge. It has been stated by the office of the PCCIT, WB, that Mr. Mondal has not joined at the place of posting until 11-10-2021. Since a criminal defamation case is being filed against him, his whereabouts and present place of posting is required.
Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Date of relieving of Mr. PK Mondal to join his new place of posting."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
"Points No. 1: The date of relieving of Mr. PK Mondal is 24.08.2021."
(14) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631167 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.11.2021 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to the attached letter addressed to CCIT, Ranchi for needful. Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Action taken on this letter by the CCIT, Ranchi until today.
2.Copy of file noting and all reports relating to this letter as above."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
"...1.After implementation of faceless scheme in the Department (w.e.f.14.08.2020),the charge of CCIT, Ranchi ceased to exist and the jurisdiction over cases of Bokaro Income Tax office vests with PCIT, Dhanbad. Hence details are not available with the charge of PCIT, Ranchi.
2.NA"
(15) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631193 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2022 seeking the following information:Page 10 of 37
"Kindly refer to following regarding my complaint against Mr. RB Naik and Mr. BK Singh. This was sent on 20/01/2021 by e-mail.
Sub:1: Prayer for Action on Mr. RB Naik, Pr. CIT, Hazaribagh for protecting corruption of Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro for not initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the IT Act of scrutiny assessment proceedings completed by Mr. BK Singh, DCIT, Bokaro.
Sub:2: Prayer for action on Mr. BK Singh, DCIT during his posting at Bokaro for completing many Scrutiny's assessment prejudicial to the interest of Revenue after taking huge bribe from assesses.
1. Mr. RB Naik is the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Hazaribagh who took over charge from Mr. TK Dutta, then PCIT who was arrested by CBI in his office at Ranchi after a huge recovery of cash of Rs.3 Crores from his official Guest House.
2. Since his posting as PCIT, Hazaribagh and Ranchi, Mr. RB Naik started protecting corruption of his juniors for obvious reasons. He got the blessings of the most corrupt Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mr. V. Mahalingam, who gave him a free hand to oblige corrupt officers and submitting false and bogus reports on complaints. (I can produce much such evidence).
3. Bokaro Income Tax Office lies under the Jurisdiction of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hazaribagh. Mr. BK Singh was one of the Assessing Officer posted at Bokaro. Mr. BK Singh is such an officer who does not have the basic knowledge of Income Tax Act but under deep rooted conspiracy, he was posted there to satisfy some senior officers.
4. He completed many scrutiny assessments during the financial year 2018-19 and FY 2019-20 on the same issue but after taking huge bribe he ignored the gravity of loss of tax revenue and did not apply his mind while completing the scrutiny assessment.
5. Mr. Singh completed many scrutiny assessment proceedings at Bokaro which are prejudicial to the interest of revenue and warrant revision u/Section 263 of Income Tax Act by the PCIT, Hazaribagh. But the PCIT, Hazaribagh is reluctant to perform his duties of a revenue officer for the reason best known to him.
Kindly provide me with the following information under RTI Act.Page 11 of 37
1.Action taken on my complaint as above sent by e-mail on 20/01/2021 at 01.24 pm."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
"No email has been received on the official mail id of this office ([email protected]) . Further, it is also not mentioned that on which mail id the said complain has been made."
(16) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/636611 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to enclosed/attached copy of letter with this application. Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Action taken on this letter from the date of receipt until today.
2. Copy of file noting involving ATR as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
"1.The RTI application was filed on 26.11.2021in the office of CCIT, Ranchi. After implementation of Faceless Scheme in the Income Tax Department w.e.f. 13.08.2020the post of CCIT, Ranchi ceased to exist resulting thereby the supporting document sent Online has also become non-functional from 13.08.2020.In view of the same this office is not in a position to furnish any information in this regard.
2.NA"
(17) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/640042 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.12.2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to the two pages letter written by the then ACIT, Bokaro Mr. VR Sonbhadra on different dates regarding First Page of Order Sheet of Paramji Alias His Holiness (Hereinafter PAHH) (PAN-AARPH 0661H) assessed to tax at Bokaro (Now deceased). The Case of PAHH for the Assessment Year 2003-04 was absurdly and ridiculously selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of non-Page 12 of 37
disclosure of a Bank Account opened on 16/03/2005. PAHH was liable to disclose this bank account in the ITR of AY 2005-06, which he did properly. But the terrorist type officers of Bokaro, Ranchi and Hazaribagh, who could not digest the wealth in the Balance Sheet of PAHH and opted to select the case of AY 2003-04 for Scrutiny on false and absurd grounds. This matter was brought to the notice of JCIT, Bokaro, then CIT, Hazaribagh, then CCIT, Ranchi but they all remained silent as huge irregularity was committed by their subordinate officers. In the meantime, since there were huge wrongdoings in the process of selection of scrutiny case, Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT and Assessing Officer opted to destroy the FIRST PAGE of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings of AY 2003-04. Rs. One Crore bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra to settle the scrutiny assessment from PAHH which was not given to him. Mr. Sonbhadra destroyed the FIRST PAGE of the Order Sheet and implanted a note sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This note sheet is nothing but the recording of reason for selection of case for Scrutiny. On request by PAHH for filing of Appeal, certified copies of Order Sheet starting from page 2 were given, whereas for other Assessment Years Order Sheet was given starting from page
1. Page one of the letters confirms that FIRST PAGE of the Order Sheet has not been given to PAHH. Page two of the letter confirms that FIRST PAGE of the Order Sheet was written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is absurd and ridiculous. Order Sheet of Assessment proceedings can only and only be written by the Assessing Officer himself. The claim of Mr. Sonbhadra is false and absurd.
Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Number of Assessment records of Assessing Officers of which First Page was written in the Office of CCIT or PCCIT for the period from 01-04- 2003 until now."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
"1.NIL"
(18) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644603 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to my complaints on the following subject in respect of Mr SK Roy, JCIT.Page 13 of 37
Sub: 1 : Complaint of Mr. SK Roy, then JCIT, Bokaro, now JCIT, Muzaffarpur and Darbhanga for sending forged Letters while being out of station. All letters sent by his staff putting his scanned signature. All complaints on this issue closed on false and misleading reports Of Mr. TK Dutta, PCIT (Now arrested by CBI) and Mr. RB Naik, PCIT, Hazaribagh.
Sub:2: Letters issued by Sri S. K. Roy, JCIT by putting scanned cut and paste signature. Another forged copy of the same letter issued to me on my request under the RTI Act which is completely different and in no circumstances can be said to be the copy of the First Letter.
Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Action taken on my complaint in respect of above sent by e-mail dated 20/01/2021 at 07.23 pm."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 21.01.2022 stating as under:
"No email has been received on the official email id of this office ([email protected] and [email protected]) from the given email id ([email protected]) on the date and time mentioned in the petition."
(19) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644605 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.01.2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to following regarding my complaint against Mr. RB Naik and Mr. BK Singh. This was sent on 20/01/2021 by e-mail.
Sub:1: Prayer for Action on Mr. RB Naik, Pr. CIT, Hazaribagh for protecting corruption of Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro for not initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the IT Act of scrutiny assessment proceedings completed by Mr. BK Singh, DCIT, Bokaro.
Sub:2: Prayer for action on Mr. BK Singh, DCIT during his posting at Bokaro for completing many Scrutiny's assessment prejudicial to the interest of Revenue after taking huge bribe from assesses.Page 14 of 37
1. Mr. RB Naik is the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Hazaribagh who took over charge from Mr. TK Dutta, then PCIT who was arrested by CBI in his office at Ranchi after a huge recovery of cash of Rs.3 Crores from his official Guest House.
2. Since his posting as PCIT, Hazaribagh and Ranchi, Mr. RB Naik started protecting corruption of his juniors for obvious reasons. He got the blessings of the most corrupt Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mr. V. Mahalingam, who gave him a free hand to oblige corrupt officers and submitting false and bogus reports on complaints. (I can produce much such evidence).
3. Bokaro Income Tax Office lies under the Jurisdiction of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hazaribagh. Mr. BK Singh was one of the Assessing Officer posted at Bokaro. Mr. BK Singh is such an officer who does not have the basic knowledge of Income Tax Act but under deep rooted conspiracy, he was posted there to satisfy some senior officers.
4. He completed many scrutiny assessments during the financial year 2018-19 and FY 2019-20 on the same issue but after taking huge bribe he ignored the gravity of loss of tax revenue and did not apply his mind while completing the scrutiny assessment.
5. Mr. Singh completed many scrutiny assessment proceedings at Bokaro which are prejudicial to the interest of revenue and warrant revision u/Section 263 of Income Tax Act by the PCIT, Hazaribagh. But the PCIT, Hazaribagh is reluctant to perform his duties of a revenue officer for the reason best known to him.
Kindly provide me with the following information under RTI Act.
1.Action taken on my complaint as above sent by e-mail on 20/01/2021 at 01.24 pm."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 21-01-2022 stating as under:
"No email has been received on the official email id of this office ([email protected] and [email protected]) from the given email id ([email protected]) on the date and time mentioned in the petition."
(20) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644607 Page 15 of 37 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.01.2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to the decision of CIC vide CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299253, wherein Mr. PK Mondal, then JCIT against whom an administrative view was to be taken against him by the CCIT. Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Copy of letter /warning issued to Mr. PK Mondal in view of order of CIC as above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 15.02.2022 stating as under:
"The decision with respect to disposal of the show- cause in complaint по. CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299253 was pronounced by the CIC on 08.03.2021. The office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi ceased to exist vide order 62 and 63 of 2020 of the CBDT dated 13.08.2020.
Copy of letter/warning issued to Mr. P.K Mondal in view of order of CIC as above is not available in this office, neither is under the custody of the undersigned. Hence the same cannot be provided."
(21) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644608 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.02.2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to my complaint (First page enclosed for ready reference) sent through Speed Post. Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Date of receipt of my complaint sent through Speed Post on 04-02- 3022.
2. Action taken on my complaint until today."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 28-02-2022 stating as under:
Page 16 of 37"On perusal of the first page of the application, it is observed that the said complaint has been addressed to the "Honorable Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building. Ranchi-834001". Further, the RTI application is also addressed to the CPIO, Office of the CCIT, Ranchi.
The applicant has already been informed vide reply of various RTI petitions filed by the applicant that the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi ceased to exist vide order 62 and 63 of 2020 of the CBDT dated 13.08.2020.
The online RTI application has been received in the Office of the CIT, Ranchi. This office has no information regarding the said complaint. The requisite information is not available in this office neither does the undersigned possess or keep the same in his custody.
Since the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi does not exist, it is not possible to determine whether the information sought is available with another CPIO, and hence, the same cannot be transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. 2005."
(22) CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630246 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.10.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Date of receipt of letter from Lokpal of India regarding my complaint.
2. Copy of such letter as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO replied to Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
1." The letter being addressed to CCIT, Ranchi was never received in this office. Since the O/o the CCIT, Ranchi does not exist, it is not possible to ascertain whether the information sought is available with another CPIO.
2. NA"
Page 17 of 37Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaints.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Neeraj Rastogi, ITO(HQ)(Admin)-cum-CPIO, O/O PCIT Ranchi accompanied with Ms. Vimla Kumari, Nodal Officer (RTI portal), Patna present through video-conference.
Written submissions filed by the Respondent against each Complaints are taken on record. Respondent invited attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission dated 21.05.2024, extracts of which case- wise are reproduced below for ready reference -
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630047 "...2. This is to reiterate that the Online RTI request form dated 26.06.2020 was never received by the CPIO, O/o PCIT, Ranchi.
3. As soon as the matter came to the notice of the undersigned a reply has been sent to the complainant on 21.05.2024, and the same is being attached herewith. Thus, keeping in mind the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act the undersigned preferred to bonafidely intimate the complainant."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630200 "...2. This is to reiterate that the Online RTI request form dated 26.06.2020 was never received by the CPIO, O/o PCIT, Ranchi.
3.As soon as the matter came to the notice of the undersigned a reply has been sent to the complainant on 21.05.2024, and the same is being attached herewith. Thus, keeping in mind the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act the undersigned preferred to bonafidely intimate the complainant."
Page 18 of 37CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630206 Respondent submitted that record of original RTI Application was not traceable. However, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission with a copy of RTI Application, the same was transferred to PCIT, Dhanbad and it was replied to the Complainant through online RTI portal by Shri Aron Kachchap, DCIT, C-1, JSR/CPIO on 22.05.2024.
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631180 Respondent vide written submission dated 21.05.2024 inter alia apprised the Commission as under -
2. "Vide the above application, the applicant sought information "Action taken on my complaint sent through e-mail ([email protected]) on 13.01.2021 at 02.03 pm".
3. The present complaint has been filed by the applicant on the ground that "There is no reply from the CPIO until today".
4. In this connection the undersigned would like to put forth the following facts for kind consideration at your end: a) Prior to 13/08/2020, the RTI matters were dealt with by the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi;
b) Post restructuring in the Income Tax Department with implementation of Faceless Scheme, the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi has been converted to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (ReFAC), Ranchi and the erstwhile post of CCIT ceased to exist at Ranchi; c) Consequent upon restructuring of the department, all the folders, available in physical form, relating to RTI matters were transferred to this office. d) So far as information sought by the applicant as to action taken on his complaint sent through e-mail from his id [email protected]_on 13.01.2021 is concerned, the e-mail dated 13.01.2021 was sent either in the user id of the erstwhile CCIT, Ranchi or in the user id of erstwhile CPIO, O/o. the then CCIT, Ranchi.
e) Thus, neither the mail was transferred to this office nor this office has any access to operate the email of the office of the erstwhile CCIT, Ranchi / erstwhile CPIO, O/o. the then CCIT, Ranchi. Hence, in absence of any specific information available, this office had no other alternative but to provide the above factual information with a bonafide intention well within the stipulated period of time as per RTI Act, 2005.
f) The Complainant has filed multiple RTI applications on similar matter without larger public interest which is resulting in disproportionate diversion of the resources causing obstruction to the day to day work.
Page 19 of 375. In view of the above facts and circumstances, reliance is placed over the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors., reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34868 of 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"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."
6. In the instant case, the answers sought by the petitioner in the application were not with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and hence the decision was taken which was before the undersigned.
7. On the above facts and circumstances and in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Courts, it is submitted that no misleading and unsatisfactory information has been provided, rather the factual and bonafide information has been provided well within the specified period of time and have followed the provisions of the Act in letter and spirit and not acted in any manner against the provisions of the Act, hence, the complaint be dismissed in limine."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/628401 Respondent submitted that record of original RTI Application was not traceable/accessible. However, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission with a copy of RTI Application, the same was transferred to ACIT, Range-1,Ranchi and it was replied to the Complainant through online RTI portal by Shri Abhay Kumar, JCIT R-3, Ranchi-(CPIO) on 15.05.2024.
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629196 Respondent submitted that RTI request has been received by them on through Nodal officer on 28.01.2020 and since the information sought pertains to JCIT, Range, 1 Ranchi; therefore, it has been forwarded to them through online RTI Page 20 of 37 portal on 11.12.2020. Shri Narsingh Kumar Khalkho, JCIT, R-1, Ranchi- (CPIO) replied to the Complainant on 24.02.2024.
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630073 "...2. This is to reiterate that the Online RTI request form dated 20.06.2021 was never received by the CPIO, O/o PCIT, Ranchi.
3.As soon as the matter came to the notice of the undersigned a reply has been sent to the complainant on 21.05.2024, and the same is being attached herewith. Thus, keeping in mind the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act the undersigned preferred to bonafidely intimate the complainant."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630203 "...2. This is to reiterate that the Online RTI request form dated 26.06.2020 was never received by the CPIO, O/o PCIT, Ranchi.
3.As soon as the matter came to the notice of the undersigned a reply has been sent to the complainant on 21.05.2024, and the same is being attached herewith. Thus, keeping in mind the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act the undersigned preferred to bonafidely intimate the complainant."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630494 "...2. This is to reiterate that the Online RTI request form dated 20.06.2021 was never received by the CPIO, O/o PCIT, Ranchi.
3.As soon as the matter came to the notice of the undersigned a reply has been sent to the complainant on 21.05.2024, and the same is being attached herewith. Thus, keeping in mind the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act the undersigned preferred to bonafidely intimate the complainant."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630495 Page 21 of 37 "...2. This is to reiterate that the Online RTI request form dated 05.08.2021 was never received by the CPIO, O/o PCIT, Ranchi.
3.As soon as the matter came to the notice of the undersigned a reply has been sent to the complainant on 21.05.2024, and the same is being attached herewith. Thus, keeping in mind the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act the undersigned preferred to bonafidely intimate the complainant."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630496 "...2. This is to reiterate that the Online RTI request form dated 06.08.2021 was never received by the CPIO, O/o PCIT, Ranchi.
3.As soon as the matter came to the notice of the undersigned a reply has been sent to the complainant on 21.05.2024, and the same is being attached herewith. Thus, keeping in mind the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act the undersigned preferred to bonafidely intimate the complainant."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631147 This is to state that the petitioner vide RTI dated 12.07.2021 had asked for "(1)Total number of cases in which bogus refund were issued to Assessees of Bokaro Steel Plant for the assessment year 2016-17; (2) total amount of bogus refund involved at sl.1 above; (3) Total amount recovered as at Sl.2 until today and (4) Name and designation of all assessing officers as on 31.03.2016."
(1) No such record is maintained to segregate the month wise, year wise and amount wise number of bogus refund issued to assesses of Bokaro Steel Plant. Further, no such provision has been made in the Departmental Software to search the bogus refund cases, hence, specific number of such cases is not possible to be provided. However, the sources of information for conducting enquiries and taking remedial measures u/s 147 or 154 in the cases of employees of Bokaro Steel Plant involving excess claim of refund was on the basis of verification and analysis done by the officers of the Department only and were divided in two parts. One of the sources of information were internal enquires conducted by the Assessing Officers and verified from Form 16 issued by the employer with the return of income filed by the assesse and the other part being information filtered /prepared by ADIT(System), Ranchi. The data Page 22 of 37 were also obtained from the BSL authorities which were verified with the return of income filed by the employees of the BSL by not including the perquisites or reduced income were identified and remedial action u/s 154 and 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 were taken by the officers of the Department at Bokaro in all the years i.e. from financial year 2009-10 to 2017-18. (2) As discussed in para 1 above, (3) As discussed in para 1 above (4) (i) Mr. Aron Kachhap, DCIT; (ii) Mr. K.K.Sinha, ITO; (iii) Ms Dewanti Das, ITO;
(iv) Mr. C.B.Sharma; ITO (v) Mr. S.C.Majumdar, ITO.
Through complaint petition the complainant has stated that "The reply of the CPIO is false and misleading." The complaint that reply of the CPIO is false and misleading is not correct as bonafide and factual reply was provided to the complainant well within the prescribed time limit under the RTI Act (Annexure-
1) and the reply is neither false nor misleading. Sir, the undersigned in the capacity of CPIO, o/o. the PCIT, Ranchi is ready to furnish further clarification, if any."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631156 "...2. This is to reiterate that the Online RTI request form dated 22.11.2021 was never received by the CPIO, O/o PCIT, Ranchi.
3.As soon as the matter came to the notice of the undersigned a reply has been sent to the complainant on 21.05.2024, and the same is being attached herewith. Thus, keeping in mind the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act the undersigned preferred to bonafidely intimate the complainant."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631167 "...2. This is to reiterate that the Online RTI request form dated 26.11.2021 was never received by the CPIO, O/o PCIT, Ranchi.
3.As soon as the matter came to the notice of the undersigned a reply has been sent to the complainant on 21.05.2024, and the same is being attached herewith. Thus, keeping in mind the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act the undersigned preferred to bonafidely intimate the complainant."
Page 23 of 37CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631193 "...2. Vide the above application, the applicant sought information "Action taken on my complaint as above sent by e-mail on 20.01.2021 at 01.24 pm".
3.The present complaint has been filed by the applicant on the ground that "There is no reply from the CPIO until today".
In this connection the undersigned would like to put forth the following facts for kind consideration at your end:
a) Prior to 13/08/2020, the RTI matters were dealt with by the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi;
b) Post restructuring in the Income Tax Department with implementation of Faceless Scheme, the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi has been converted to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (ReFAC), Ranchi and the erstwhile post of CCIT ceased to exist at Ranchi;
c) Consequent upon restructuring of the department, all the folders, available in physical form, relating to RTI matters were transferred to this office.
d) So far as information sought by the applicant as to action taken on his complaint sent through e-mail from his id [email protected] on 12.07.2021 is concerned, the e-mail dated 12.07.2021 was sent either in the user id of the erstwhile CCIT, Ranchi or in the user id of erstwhile CPIO, O/o. the then CCIT, Ranchi.
e) Thus, neither the mail was transferred to this office nor this office has any access to operate the email of the office of the erstwhile CCIT, Ranchi / erstwhile CPIO, O/o. the then CCIT, Ranchi. Hence, in absence of any specific information available, this office had no other alternative but to provide the above factual information with a bonafide intention well within the stipulated period of time as per RTI Act, 2005.
f) The Complainant has filed multiple RTI applications on similar matter without larger public interest which is resulting in disproportionate diversion of the resources causing obstruction to the day to day work.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, reliance is placed over the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors., reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. Page 24 of 37 34868 of 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"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."
In the instant case, the answers sought by the petitioner in the application were not with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and hence the decision was taken which was before the undersigned.
8. On the above facts and circumstances and in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Courts, it is submitted that no misleading and unsatisfactory information has been provided, rather the factual and bonafide information has been provided well within the specified period of time and have followed the provisions of the Act in letter and spirit and not acted in any manner against the provisions of the Act, hence, the complaint be dismissed in limine."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/636611 "...2. This is to reiterate that the Online RTI request form dated 12.07.2021 was never received by the CPIO, O/o PCIT, Ranchi.
3.As soon as the matter came to the notice of the undersigned a reply has been sent to the complainant on 21.05.2024, and the same is being attached herewith. Thus, keeping in mind the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act the undersigned preferred to bonafidely intimate the complainant."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/640042 "...2. This is to reiterate that the Online RTI request form dated 13.12.2022 was never received by the CPIO, O/o PCIT, Ranchi.
Page 25 of 373.As soon as the matter came to the notice of the undersigned a reply has been sent to the complainant on 21.05.2024, and the same is being attached herewith. Thus, keeping in mind the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act the undersigned preferred to bonafidely intimate the complainant."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644603 "...2. Vide the above application, the applicant sought information "Action taken on my complaint in respect of above sent by e-mail on 20.01.2021 at 07.23 pm".
3.The present complaint has been filed by the applicant on the ground that "There is no reply from the CPIO until today".
In this connection the undersigned would like to put forth the following facts for kind consideration at your end:
a) Prior to 13/08/2020, the RTI matters were dealt with by the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi;
b) Post restructuring in the Income Tax Department with implementation of Faceless Scheme, the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi has been converted to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (ReFAC), Ranchi and the erstwhile post of CCIT ceased to exist at Ranchi;
c) Consequent upon restructuring of the department, all the folders, available in physical form, relating to RTI matters were transferred to this office.
d) So far as information sought by the applicant as to action taken on his complaint sent through e-mail from his id [email protected] _is concerned, the e-mail dated 20.01.2021 was sent either in the user id of the erstwhile CCIT, Ranchi or in the user id of erstwhile CPIO, O/o. the then CCIT, Ranchi.
e) Thus, neither the mail was transferred to this office nor this office has any access to operate the email of the office of the erstwhile CCIT, Ranchi / erstwhile CPIO, O/o. the then CCIT, Ranchi. Hence, in absence of any specific information available, this office had no other alternative but to provide the above factual information with a bonafide intention well within the stipulated period of time as per RTI Act, 2005.Page 26 of 37
f) The Complainant has filed multiple RTI applications on similar matter without larger public interest which is resulting in disproportionate diversion of the resources causing obstruction to the day to day work.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, reliance is placed over the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors., reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34868 of 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"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."
In the instant case, the answers sought by the petitioner in the application were not with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and hence the decision was taken which was before the undersigned."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644605 "This is to state that the petitioner vide RTI dated 16.01.2022 had asked for "Action taken on my complaint as above sent by e-mail on 20.01.2021 at 01.24 pm"
At this juncture it would be right to place that the complainant has not mentioned to whom the e-mail was addressed (20.01.2021), and as per the RTI dated 16.01.2022 it appears that the petition is addressed to CCIT, Ranchi, the office which ceased to exist since 13.08.2020 and the mail id details were not shared at the time of handing over of files and folders. Hence, the reply sent on 21.01.2022 is very much in line to the facts.
Through complaint petition the complainant has stated that "The CPIO has given misleading and evasive reply".
The CPIO has made factual reply to the complainant well within the prescribed time limit under the RTI Act and the reply is neither misleading nor evasive. Sir, Page 27 of 37 the undersigned in the capacity of CPIO, o/o. the PCIT, Ranchi is ready to furnish further clarification, if any."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644607 "This is to state that the petitioner vide RTI dated 31.01.2022 had asked for "Copy of letter/ warning issued to Mr. P.K.Mondal in view of order of CIC as above"
At this juncture it would be right to place that the complainant had made online RTI request on the portal of CCIT, Ranchi, the office which ceased to exist since 13.08.2020 and the details were not shared at the time of handing over of files and folders. Hence, the reply sent on 15.02.2022 is very much in line to the facts.
Through complaint petition the complainant has stated that "The CPIO has given misleading and evasive reply"
The CPIO has made factual reply to the complainant well within the prescribed time limit under the RTI Act and the reply is neither misleading nor evasive. Sir, the undersigned in the capacity of CPIO, o/o. the PCIT, Ranchi is ready to furnish further clarification, if any...."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644608 "This is to state that the petitioner vide RTI dated 28.02.2022 had asked for Date of receipt of my complaint sent through Speed Post on 04.02.2022; (ii) action taken on my complaint until today."
(1) The reply sent on 28.02.2022 is reiterated in response to complain filed before Hon'ble CIC since there is no change in the position. Copy of the reply is attached to this letter.
Through complaint petition the complainant has stated that "The CPIO has given misleading and evasive reply."
The complaint that reply of the CPIO is misleading and evasive is not correct as bonafide and factual reply was provided to the complainant well within the prescribed time limit under the RTI Act (Annexure-1) and the reply is neither misleading nor evasive. Sir, the undersigned in the capacity of CPIO, o/o. the PCIT, Ranchi is ready to furnish further clarification, if any."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630246 Page 28 of 37 "...2. This is to reiterate that the Online RTI request form dated 28.10.2020 was never received by the CPIO, O/o PCIT, Ranchi.
3. As soon as the matter came to the notice of the undersigned a reply has been sent to the complainant on 21.05.2024, and the same is being attached herewith. Thus, keeping in mind the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act the undersigned preferred to bonafidely intimate the complainant."
For delay in reply, the Respondent tendered his unconditional apology and explained prior to 13.08.2020, the RTI matters were dealt by the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi. Post restructuring in the Income Tax Department with implementation of Faceless Scheme, the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi has been converted to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (ReFAC), Ranchi and the erstwhile post of CCIT ceased to exist at Ranchi. Subsequent to restructuring of the department, all the folders, available in physical form, relating to RTI matters transferred to their office were perused and no records were found in this regard. Therefore, they were not in a position to provide the desired information to the complainant within a time frame and accordingly replies were given.
The Respondent added that Complainant is a habitual RTI applicant who filed numerous RTI applications to harass the Respondent Public Authority to clog the working system. He urged the Commission to intervene in the matter and take some action against this misconduct of the complainant.
In case File Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629196, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631147 and CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/640042:
Respondent apprised the Commission that such data is not maintained in the compiled form and compiling it to give the reply to RTI Applications will involve opening of thousands of ITR assessment cases where the work force and resources of their office would have been diverted completely to verify each and every individual case record, which are thousands in numbers. This diversion of time and resources would have hampered other statutory work including those which are quasi-judicial in nature and are bound by limitation of time. Thus, the information sought being voluminous in nature and available Page 29 of 37 at several different locations, collating and compiling it would have disproportionately diverted the resources of the department, thereby attracting the provision of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondents and perusal of the records, notes that all the RTI applications have been replied to by the respondent. After receipt of hearing notices, the respondent had revisited all the RTI applications, and provided updated reply/information to the complainant as per available records vide their letters dated 28.01.2022, 15.02.2022, 28.02.2022, 15.05.2024, 21.05.2024 and 22.05.2024, and copies of the same are placed on record. The factual positions in the above matters have already been informed to the complainant. The Commission further observes that there is a substantial delay in providing reply to the Complainant on the above-mentioned RTI applications except in case File Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644603, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644605,CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644607,CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/64 4608 for which the Respondent informed the bench that due to some technical reasons owing to merging and restructuring, 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.
Moreover, the Commission agrees with the stand of the Respondent made during the hearing For Case File Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629196, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631147 and CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/640042 that records of information sought are not readily available in the compiled form and, collation and compilation of it would divert the time and resources of the Respondent Public Authority in terms of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. A similar issue of the complainant has already been dealt with by this bench in the recent past vide case File Nos. CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633120 & Others decided on 21.05.2024.
Page 30 of 37The Commission further observes that the complainant has not filed any first appeal in the above-mentioned cases and reasons for the same could not be ascertained as he was not present before the Commission despite notice. The Complainant neither filed any written objections nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondents and further agitate the matter. The Complainant in his above-mentioned complaints failed to establish any mala fide on part of the Respondents in replying to the RTI applications or for withholding the information, if any.
Further, the Commission is not inclined to accept the prayer of the Complainant to impose penalty as well as 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 that his intention is 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 2000 cases of the same Complainant against same and 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 118 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 seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications with minor changes 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 Page 31 of 37 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 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 32 of 37 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 Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:Page 33 of 37
".........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 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 Page 34 of 37 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 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:
Page 35 of 37"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 and Complaints which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. The Respondent has pleaded for remedy against repeated and humongous number of RTI applications and Complaints by the same person. 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 and leave it to the respondent to choose a remedy.
"...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.Page 36 of 37
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, the Commission finds no mala fide on part of the CPIOs. Further, the Commission, like on several occasions in the past, again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it as a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.
However, as regards compliance of orders passed by CIC under reference in case File Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630494, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630495, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644607, the complainant is at liberty to file a 'non- compliance' application, if need be, with the Commission which will be heard separately on its turn.
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 37 of 37 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)