Central Information Commission
T C Gupta vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 20 January, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
Files No.: CIC/CCITB/A/2020/135919 +
CIC/CCITB/A/2021/626677
T C Gupta ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Pr. Chief Commissioner Of
Income Tax, Karnataka & Goa
Region, Bangalore, RTI Cell,
CR Building, No.1, Queen's
Road, Bangalore-560001,
Karnataka. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26/12/2022
Date of Decision : 17/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on identical subject of RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application(s) filed on : 11/06/2020 & 23/03/2021
CPIO replied on : 13/07/2020 & 21/04/2021
First appeal (s) filed on : 24/07/2020 & 28/04/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 24/08/2020 & 25/06/2021
2nd Appeal (s)/Complaint dated : 08/11/2020 & 28/06/2021
CIC/CCITB/A/2021/135919
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.06.2020 seeking the following information:
"PCCIT Bangalore office filed WP No.43819/2019 in Bangalore High Court for an amount of cost of Rs. 5000/- only. This is a case of corruption and misuse of powers as well as process of law. Please provide following information:-
1. Copy of note sheet regarding decision making for filing the Wp.
2. Copy of authorisation issued to the DCIT (HQ) for filing false and baseless facts under sworn statement in the court.
3. Allow inspection and extracts of the relevant records."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the appellant on 13.07.2020 stating as under:-
Information sought Reply PCCIT Bangalore office filed WP The information desired vide your application is No.43819/2019 in Bangalore High exempt u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the Court for an amount of cost of Rs. information desired is personal in nature. You have
5000/- only. This is a case of corruption failed to mention the public interest involved in the and misuse of powers as well as information desired, thereby invoking the exemption process of law. Please provide provision u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The matter following information. as narrated by you in you application is sub-judice and though you have stated that the disclosure is covered
1. Copy of note sheet regarding by the decision of the CIC in your own case, the details decision making for filing the Wp. of the same have not been furnished.
However, the decision of the CIC in the c/o Milap
2. Copy of authorisation issued to the Choraria Vs Dept. of Revenue Dt. 27.07.2009 finds DCIT (HQ) for filing false and baseless direct application in the instant case. The CIC in the facts under sworn statement in the said case has upheld the rights of the Public authority court. as no public interest is being served by the personal interest of the applicant and it also violates the norms
3. Allow inspection and extracts of the of equity as it comprises the ability of the public relevant records. authority in the litigation pursued.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.07.2020. FAA's order dated 24.08.2020, directed the CPIO to provide the information to the appellant within the ambit of the RTI Act 2005.
In compliance with FAA's order, the CPIO furnished a revised point wise reply to the appellant on 24.09.2020 stating as under:-
Information sought Reply
2
The office of Pr. CCIT Bangalore filed The issue has been examined as directed by the
WP No.43819/2019 in Bangalore High Appellate Authority in the light of the decisions
Court for an amount of cost of Rs. mentioned the order dated 20.08.2020 and the
5000/- in this regard: information sought by the Applicant. It will be
pertinent to note that the High Court of Delhi order
1. Copy of note sheet regarding relied upon by the Appellant in the c/o M/s MCD Vs R
decision making for filing the Wp. K Jain in WP Np. 14120/2009, the issue contended
was with regard to failure of the Application to
2. Copy of authorization issued to the exercise the remedy of going before the Appellate
DCIT (HQ) for filing false and baseless Authority. The High Court in its order refers to a facts under sworn statement in the decision of the CIC relied upon by the petitioner court. Department in the c/o Milap Choraria Vs Jai Raj Singh Commissioner of Income Tax dated 09.04.2007 where
3. Allow inspection and extracts of the it did not find any merit. Though the Hon'ble High relevant records. Court observed that there was no provision in the RTI Act, 2005 to withhold information that is subjudice, it did not consider the decision of the CIC in the c/o Milap Choraria Vs. CBDT dated 27.07.2009 which has been relied upon in the reply dated 13.07.2020. The relevant paras of the order wherein the CIC has made its observation is reproduced as under:
"It has been argued before us that within the meaning of Section 2(n) a public authority is a 'third-party', who under Section 11(1) can hold or supply an information confidentially."
"...40. The respondent have derived strength from sections 123,124 and 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, which authorize them under certain circumstances to withhold from public disclosure information held by the officers of the public authority in confidence, except when public interest warrants such disclosure.
41.They have further argued that these provisions of the Indian Evidence Act were entirely consistent with the provisions under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is duty-bound under section 11(1) to consider the grounds which a public authority urges to keep confidential information undisclosed and to decide on the validity of the grounds for its decision."
In view of the above observation, the CIC concluded as follows:
"there are compelling grounds for them to hold confidential information relating to how they wished to defend their legal position in litigation or a threatened litigation. Their reference to the violation of the norms of equity in allowing the very person, who seeks to drag the public authority to court, all information about how the public authority wished to defend itself is also quite convincing."3
In view of the foregoing, the CIC went on to dismiss the complaint of the Applicant. Relying on the above narrative of the CIC in the decision relied upon, the information sought by the Applicant is hereby denied.
In view of the above, the inspection of the records is also denied.
CIC/CCITB/A/2021/626677 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.03.2021 seeking the following information:
"Allow inspection and to take extracts of file of WP No. 43819/2019 in case of TC Gupta.
I state that the information does not fall within the restrictions contained in the RTI Act and to the best of my knowledge pertains to your office. The matter being sub judice is no ground to claim information as exempt. Under RTI Act information can be claimed as exempt only under section 8 and 9. Delhi high court in order Dt.23.09.2010 in WP No. 1120/2009 in the c/o. R K Jain and the CIC, in the order Dt.15.03.2019 in the appeal No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2007/165443-BJ in the c/o T C Gupta has held that the matter being subjudice before court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt under any clause of section 8(1) of the RTI Act."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 21.04.2021 stating as under:-
Information sought Reply Allow inspection and to take extracts of The application sought in the present file of WP No. 43819/2019 in the c/o. T C application is the same as in the Gupta application made under reg, No. CCITB/R/E/20/00062 Dt.11.06.2020. The 4 I state that the information does not fall reply has been provided by the CPIO vide within the restrictions contained in the RTI his letter Dt.13.07.2020. Act and to the best of my knowledge pertains to your office. The matter being The RTI Act, 2005 does not provide for subjudice is no ground to claim repetition I the information sought. information as exempt. Under RTI Act Reliance is placed on the decision of the information can be claimed as exempt only Central Information Commission, dated under section 8 and 9. Delhi high court in 25.06.2014 in the case of Shri Ramesh order Dt.23.09.2010 in WP No. 1120/2009 Chand Jain Vs. Delhi Transport in the c/o. R K Jain and the CIC, in the Corporation, CNCTD, Delhi vide order Dt.15.03.2019 in the appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA, dated CIC/CCITJ/A/2007/165443-BJ in the c/o T C 25.06.2014,it is stated that:
Gupta has held that the matter being " .. subjudice before court is not one of the (i) No scope of repeating under categories of information which is exempt RTI under any clause of section 8(1) of the RTI (ii) Citizen has no right to repeat Act. (iii) Repetition shall be ground of refusal (iv) Appeals can be rejected. ..." In the view of the above, the application is rejected.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.04.2021. FAA's order dated 25.06.2019, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal (s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Pankaj, DCIT (Hq- Admn.) & CPIO (I/c.) present through video- conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the instant Appeal of the Appellant has been heard together simultaneously along with his eleven more Second Appeals. As regards his submissions to the instant Appeals, he expressed his dissatisfaction with CPIO's reply on the following arguments -
"....(1). The CPIO was requested to provide information relating to filing of WP No. 43819/2019 in the High Court, relying on the CIC decision in No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2007/165443-BJ dated 15.3.2019 between the same parties.5
The WP was filed in the High Court involving a very small issue of cost of Rs. 5000/-, thus it was sheer wastage of public time and money and burdening the already over-burdened Courts.
(2). The CPIO vide reply dated 21.4.2021 rejected the application on the ground of repetition.
(3). Against the CPIO order 1st appeal was filed on 28.4.2021 stating that the CPIO has rejected the application on the illegal and malafide ground of repetition where there was no public interest. The CPIO also did not provide any opportunity of being heard.
(4) The AA in its order dated 256.2021 dismissed the appeal relying on the ground of repetition. The AA did not provide any opportunity of being heard. He also did not discuss the CIC decision and other issues raised in appeal. (5) The CPIO and AA dismissed the applications illegally and malafidely, without discussing and considering the relied upon decisions and facts. The alleged earlier RTI application was rejected on the illegal ground that the matter is sub-judice. Now, at the time of filing this RTI application, the alleged sub-judice matter had already been decided. Therefore, even the ground had changed in this application..."
The Appellant further alleged the malpractices adopted by the Respondent organization in wasting an amount of around Rs. 2 lakhs towards the counsel fees from the public exchequer for waiver of a petty cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed against the Respondent. In this regard, he also sought the intervention of the Commission to facilitate him the reasons for incurring such a huge amount of expenses without any basis. In fact , towards the end of the discussions, the Appellant agreed for not sharing the legal advice/ opinion but just the administrative noting on the file.
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 20.12.2022, which are reproduced as under -
"....(i) The applicant is a practicing advocate and a retired employee of this Department. He has instituted hundreds of cases against the department involving himself as an Applicant or Counsel. RTI Act is being used by him extensively to grind his axe against the officers whom he wants to target for his own professional gains. He has also filed hundreds of RTI applications. In the instant case the issue was that Department filed a Writ Petition which was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka waiving cost of Rs 5000/- imposed on the Department by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal. The Respondents are at liberty to defend their cause and to prevent any decision from becoming a 6 precedent. Present application is a means to target the officers involved in the filing of the WP which is a sovereign right of the Department.
Day to day functioning of the department is hampered and morale of the officers is adversely affected when such fictitious and vexatious applications attempts to fish out some information just to target them. For filing of the Writ Petition (to which the applicant was a party) the applicant has imputed motives on the officers calling them various names.
(i) Though the AA has relied on the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma, the decision of the C/o. Milap Choraria Vs Dept. of Revenue dated 27.07.2009 is squarely applicable wherein it is held as under :
"It has been argued before us that within the meaning of Section 2(n), a public authority is a 'third-party, who under Section 11(1) confidentially." can hold or supply an information confidentiality.
The respondents have derived strength from Sections 123, 124 and 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, which authorize them under certain circumstances to withhold from public disclosure information held by the officers of the public authority in confidence, except when public interest warrants such disclosure. They have further argued thot these provisions of the Indian Evidence Act were entirely consistent with the provisions under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is duty-bound under Section 11(1) to consider the grounds which a public authority urges to keep confidential information undisclosed and to decide on the validity of the grounds for its decision."
In view of the above observation, the CIC concluded as follows:
"there are compelling grounds for them to hold confidential information relating to how they wished to defend their legal position in litigation or a threatened litigation. Their reference to the violation of the norms of equity in allowing the very person, who seeks to drag the public authority to court, all information about how the public authority wished to defend itself is also quite convincing."
In view of the foregoing, the CIC went on to dismiss the complaint of the Applicant. Relying on the above narrative of the CIC in the decision relied upon, the information and inspection of the records was also denied. (in) "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands," is a settled doctrine in Indian jurisprudence. The appellant in the instant case is a compulsive litigant and has been filing frivolous and vexatious RTI Application seeking information with intent to disrupt the ordinary day to day functioning of the administration. His RTI applications cannot be considered as a mere 7 exercise of one's lawful rights. Rather it is often seen that officers have been targeted by the appellant by making scurrilous remarks against them.
(iv) Reliance is placed on the following decisions of the CIC (a) Neha Srivastav v. Trade marks Registry observed as follows: ".there are no provisions in the Act for redressal of grievances in the garb of seeking information. The Rules are to be read with Act and in case can actually override the Act."
(b) The CIC in the c/o Amar Kumar Jha Vs Indian Army made the following observation:
"The Appellant appears to be doing so despite the express knowledge of the fact that he is pursuing a matter of no larger public interest, rather concerning only his perceived personal grievance. It is appalling to note that the public authority is being unabashedly harassed by filing umpteen vexations RTI applications. It is also not clear as to what kind of information will satisfy the Appellant as it appears he is merely intending to compel the public authorities into addressing his grievances. This being the ulterior motive is manifest from the bare perusal of the queries of these RTI applications..."
(v) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 97 has held as under
"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. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Also, such denial of frivolous application has been upheld by the decision of the Hon'ble CIC in the case of S K Lal Vs Ministry of Railways (Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00268- 272 dated 29.12.2006) wherein the Hon'ble CIC has observed that the RTI Act allows the citizen to seek any information other than the 10 categories exempted under Sec. 8, it does not mean that the public authorities are allowed to entertain all sort of frivolous application. In the instant case to provide the information sought, a lot of inconvenience will be caused to the public authority to compile the information sought by him. Manpower that is devoted 8 towards carrying out regular activity will have to be diverted to compile the (vi) information.
(vii) Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at dated 14.11.2014, in SPA No.16480/2014 (Pankesh Manubhai Patel Vs Chief Information Commissioners and Ors) as under:
we agree with the respondents that collecting this information would disproportionately divert their resources from the day to day work. The appellant has not established any large public interest, which would warrant a directive to the respondents to collect the information, sought by him, even at the cost of diverting their resources from their day to day work. In the above context, we also note the following observations of the Supreme Court in Central Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. Board of Secondary Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTl 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 counterproductive 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. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritizing "
information furnishing" at the cost of their normal and regular duties".
Having considered the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent authorities and the information asked for by the petitioner, this court finds that, the view taken by the commission in the facts of this case does not call for any interference. Further, the commission has noted the observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, which would apply with full force in the facts of this case. This court does not see any infirmity in the impugned decision of the commission. This petition therefore needs to be dismissed".
In conclusion, the CPIO to a query from the Commission explained that the Appellant was arrayed as one of the respondents in the above mentioned Writ Petition and the case has since been concluded by the Hon'ble High Court 9 whereby the cost has also been waived off as imposed by the Hon'ble CAT. Lastly, the CPIO agreed to abide by the direction of the Commission.
Decision:
The Commission remarked at the outset that the core issue raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeals was denial of information by the CPIO by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act and also on the plea that the matter with respect to W.P. 43819/2019 is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In response to it, the CPIO reiterated their stand for denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act and further apprised the Commission that as on date, the case attains finality with the waiver of cost imposed by the Hon'ble CAT against the officer of Respondent organization and also with the fact that the Appellant in the averred Writ Petition has been arrayed as one of the Respondents.
Having observed as above, the Commission is of the considered opinion that complete denial of information by the CPIO in response to instant RTI Applications under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was not appropriate. The CPIO instead of proper application of mind with regards to applicability of Section 10 of RTI Act as for severance of records vaguely denied the information altogether. The only pertinent exemption from disclosure of information against the information sought appears to be with respect to the names and details of third party officer(s) and advices/opinions of the legal counsel which are reflected on the note sheet as sought for at point no. 1 in case file no. CIC/CCITB/A/2021/135919 and cannot be divulged considering the exemptions envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. However, in response to point no. 2 in the said Second Appeal the Commission as the query raised by the Appellant is based on the conjectures which does not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
Now, upon insistence of the Appellant and considering the fact that the writ petition in question has already attained the final verdict and in the said case the Appellant was one of the Respondent party, the CPIO in the spirit of RTI Act is hereby directed to provide the relevant information sought for at point no. 1 of to the Appellant, barring the legal advice/ opinion and in doing so the CPIO is at liberty to invoke Section 10 of the RTI Act for redacting the information related to the personal information of third parties which is otherwise stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. For the sake of clarity, extracts of Section 10 is reproduced as under:10
10.Severability.--
(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.
The above said directions should be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO stipulating the details of the inspection provided and copy of the documents provided thereof.
The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 11