Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 122]

Central Information Commission

Mr.Milap Choraria vs Cbdt on 12 July, 2011

                                   1


              Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama 
                     Place, New Delhi­110066
     Telefax:011­26180532 & 011­26107254 website­cic.gov.in

              Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000189 

 Appellant /Complainant        :         Shri Milap Choraria, 
Delhi       
Public Authority               :    CBDT, New Delhi 
                               (Sh.Roopak Kumar,CPIO, 
Sh.D.Srinivas,
                               AA) 

Date of Hearing                :         12 July 2011   
Date of Decision               :         12 July 2011

Facts:­ 

1. 0188 - Applicant submitted RTI applications dated  11   May   2010   before   the   CPIO,   Department   of   Revenue,  CBDT,   New   Delhi   seeking   information   regarding  guidelines   for   monitoring   of   telephone   calls   and  entire   file   noting   from   the   respective   file   through  which   approval   is   granted   to   Directorate   General   of  Income   Tax   (investigation)   for   monitoring   of   the  telephone calls of individuals -  enclosed herewith as  Annexure A.

2. Vide   order   dated   24   June   2010,   the   CPIO   denied  disclosure of information by citing the provisions of  section   24   (1)   of   the   Act   under   which   nothing  contained   in   the   said   Act   would   apply   to   the  intelligence   and   security   Organizations   specified   in  the   Second   Schedule.   And   argued   that   since   the  information   sought   for   directly   related   to   DGIT  (Investigation)   on   which   section   24   (1)   applied   the  information could not be provided.

3. Applicant   preferred   appeal   dated   25   July   2010  before the first appellate authority.

4. Matter   was   disposed   of   vide   FAA   order   dated   1  September 2010 by upholding the order of the CPIO.

5. Not   being   satisfied   with   the   above   orders,  appellant   preferred   second   appeal   before   the  Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000189   2 Commission   matter   was   heard   today   both   parties   were  present as above and presented arguments.

Facts: 

6. 0189  - Applicant presented RTI application dated  11   May   2010   before   the   CPIO,   Department   of   Revenue,  CBDT,   New   Delhi   seeking   information   regarding   full  file/file   notings/proposals   From   Department   of  Revenue/CBDT to bring DG IT (investigation) under the  Second Schedule under section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005  resulting   in   the   issuance   of   Gazette   notification  dated 28 March 2008.

7. Vide   CPIO   order   of   11   June   2010,   appellant   was  denied   disclosure   of   the   requested   information   by  citing the provisions of section 24 (1) of the Act.

8. Appellant   preferred   appeal   dated   11   July   2010  before the first appellate authority.

9. Vide FAA order dated 1 September 2010 matter was  decided by upholding the order of the CPIO and on the  grounds that the appeal had been filed after the time  limit for filing such appeal had expired and that the  appellant had not furnished any cause which prevented  him from filing the appeal in time.

10. Appellant   submitted   second   appeal   before   the  Commission. Matter was heard today. Both parties were  present as above in person and made submissions.

11. To   make   his   point   to   support   nondisclosure   of  information  to the  appellant,  respondent  quoted  from  order   of   the   Delhi   High   Court   in   the   matter  pertaining   to   Mercury   Travels   India   (P)   Ltd   Vs  Director   of   Enforcement,   New   Delhi,   FAO   no.   73   of  1973   wherein   it   is   stated,   "   ....   That   to   carry   out  effectually   the   object   of   a   statute,   it   must   be   so  construed  as  to defeat  all  attempts  to  do, or avoid  doing, in an indirect or circuitous manner that which  it   has   prohibited   or   enjoyed:   Quando   aliquid  prohibetur   ex   directo,   prohibetur   et   per   obliquum" 

(when   anything   is   prohibited   directly,   it   is  prohibited also indirectly).
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000189   3 Decision notice

12. After   hearing   both   parties   the   Commission  upholds the order of the CPIO and the first appellate  authority. Appeal is dismissed. 

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra) Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar   Copy to:­
1. Shri Milap Choraria B­5/52, Setor­7 Rohini, Delhi­110085
2. The CPIO Under Secretary (Inv.)­II,III Central Board of Direct Taxes Department of Revenue, North Block New Delhi­110001.
3. The Appellate Authority Director (Inv.).II & III   Central Board of Direct Taxes Department of Revenue,  Room No. 265­A, North Block New Delhi­110001.
     

Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000189