Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 3 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415
Radha Raman Tripathy ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
O/o the Income Tax officer,
Sector-1C/795 B S City,
Ward 3(1), Bokaro - 827001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.01.2026
Date of Decision : 03.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant
as well as the Respondent are same, subject-matter is similar in nature and
hence are being disposed of through a common order.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 05.08.2021
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415
Page 1 of 23
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.06.2023
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.08.2021 (online) 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 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.
3. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 28.04.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 2 of 23 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.06.2023 Information sought:
4. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Sub: (1) Huge Bogus Income Tax Refund amounting to more than 100 crores in 12000 cases issued to Officers and Employees of Bokaro Steel Plant. No timely action taken by Officers of Income Tax Department listed below for recovery of Revenue Loss under deep rooted conspiracy. Sub: (2) Huge corruption by Officers of Bokaro Income Tax Office and some of their senior officers who shared the Scam money among themselves preventing them to take action against whom Refunds were issued on account of non-inclusion of Perks amount to the Salary income causing illegal refunds to officers and Staff of Bokaro Steel Plant.
Ref:(1) Information received from Bokaro Steel Plant confirming payment of Rs.73,10,76,220/- as perks to 3422 executives of Bokaro Steel Plant during the financial year 2010-11 alone. Another information for the subsequent FY 2011-12 confirming payment of R.76,45,18,301/- to 3435 executives were paid.
1. With deepest regrets, I wish to bring some facts regarding huge financial fraud committed by officers of Income Tax Department, Bokaro on account of issuing bogus and illegal Income Tax refunds to officers and staff of Bokaro Steel Plant.
2. These refunds were issued for the FYs 2009-10,2010-11,2012-13,2013- 14,2014-15,2015-16 and 2016-17, as has been accepted by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi.
3. Bokaro Steel Plant paid Salary and Perks to their Officials separately and deducted tax on both the amounts. However, while uploading the data for Income Tax purposes, amount of perks was not uploaded, whereas Tax was deducted on both the amounts.
4. Non-inclusion of Perks into Salary income resulted in lower tax liability, whereas tax was deducted on both the items i.e. on salary income and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 3 of 23 perks paid to them. Huge Bogus refund was claimed by some Tax consultants and issued accordingly to taxpayers.
5. This matter of huge financial fraud was exposed by me as many taxpayers had approached my office for this illegal act but were denied by my office in spite of offer of 50% of illegal refunds as fee to be paid to my office. But some touts and consultants took illegal advantage of this and filed ITRs by omitting perks income because this amount was not being reflected in the Form 26AS of the Income Tax Department.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name and designation of all assessing officers posted at Bokaro (Jharkhand) upon whom responsibility has been fixed for not initiating recovery proceedings within time in respect of Bogus refund issued for the AY 2014-15.
2. Total reassessment notices issued as at sl.1 above.
3. The fee is paid online."
5. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 28.04.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04.07.2023 Information sought:
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 4 of 23
7. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Sub: (1) Huge Bogus Income Tax Refund amounting to more than 100 crores in 12000 cases issued to Officers and Employees of Bokaro Steel Plant. No timely action taken by Officers of Income Tax Department listed below for recovery of Revenue Loss under deep rooted conspiracy. Sub: (2) Huge corruption by Officers of Bokaro Income Tax Office and some of their senior officers who shared the Scam money among themselves preventing them to take action against whom Refunds were issued on account of non-inclusion of Perks amount to the Salary income causing illegal refunds to officers and Staff of Bokaro Steel Plant.
Ref:(1) Information received from Bokaro Steel Plant confirming payment of Rs.73,10,76,220/- as perks to 3422 executives of Bokaro Steel Plant during the financial year 2010-11 alone. Another information for the subsequent FY 2011-12 confirming payment of R.76,45,18,301/- to 3435 executives were paid.
1. With deepest regrets, I wish to bring some facts regarding huge financial fraud committed by officers of Income Tax Department, Bokaro on account of issuing bogus and illegal Income Tax refunds to officers and staff of Bokaro Steel Plant.
2. These refunds were issued for the FYs 2009-10,2010-11,2012-13,2013- 14,2014-15,2015-16 and 2016-17, as has been accepted by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi.
3. Bokaro Steel Plant paid Salary and Perks to their Officials separately and deducted tax on both the amounts. However, while uploading the data for Income Tax purposes, amount of perks was not uploaded, whereas Tax was deducted on both the amounts.
4. Non-inclusion of Perks into Salary income resulted in lower tax liability, whereas tax were deducted on both the items i.e. on salary income and perks paid to them. Huge Bogus refund was claimed by some Tax consultants and issued accordingly to taxpayers.
5. This matter of huge financial fraud was exposed by me as many taxpayers had approached my office for this illegal act but were denied by CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 5 of 23 my office in spite of offer of 50% of illegal refunds as fee to be paid to my office. But some touts and consultants took illegal advantage of this and filed ITRs by omitting perks income because this amount was not being reflected in the Form 26AS of the Income Tax Department.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name and designation of all assessing officers posted at Bokaro (Jharkhand) upon whom responsibility has been fixed for not initiating recovery proceedings within time in respect of Bogus refund issued for the AY 2013-14.
2. Total reassessment notices issued as at sl.1 above.
3. The fee is paid online."
8. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA's order is not on record.
9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant Absent Respondent: Shri J. P. Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer-cum-CPIO, Ward 3 (1), Bokaro, appeared through video conference.
10. Proof of having served copies of Second Appeals on Respondent while filing the same in CIC are not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
11. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 23.01.2026 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 6 of 23 copy of the same was sent to the Complainant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"This is in continuation of reply already filed by this office letter F. No. ITO/W-3(1)/BKSC/CIC/RTI/2025-26/868 dt. 23rd January, 2026 through which the reply against CIC appeal nos. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632410, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631224, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632667 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632412 have been furnished. As far as the remaining reply in respect of the CIC file no. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, 632415 & 632414 is concerned, I would like to state as under:
(1) CIC file no. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146: Vide the RTI Request Registration No. CBODT/R/E/21/01657, the applicant had requested to furnish the following information:
"Kindly refer to the attached order of 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 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.
Reply: It is most respectfully submitted that the information requested by the applicant is not maintained, held, or available in the records of this office.
(2) CIC file no. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415: Vide the RTI Request Registration No. CBODT/R/E/22/01027, the applicant had requested to furnish the following information:
Sub(1) "Huge Bogus Income Tax Refund to more than 100 crores in 12000 cases issued to officers and employees of Bokaro Steel Plant. No timely action taken by officers of Income Tax Department listed below for recovery of Revenue Loss under deep routed conspiracy.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 7 of 23 Sub (2) Huge corruption by Officers of Bokaro Income Tax Office and some of their senior officers who shared the scam money among themselves preventing them to take action against whom refunds were issued on account of non-inclusion of perks amount to the salary income causing illegal refunds to officers and staffs of the Bokaro Steel Plant.
Ref: (1) Information received from Bokaro Steel Plant continuing payment of Rs. 73,10,76,220/- as perks to 3422 executives of Bokaro Steel Plant during the financial year 2010-11 alone. Another information for the subsequent FY 2011-12 confirming payment of Rs. 76,45,18,301/- to 3435 executives were paid.
1. With deepest regrets I wish to bring some facts regarding huge financial fraud committed by Officers of Income Tax Department Bokaro on account of issuing bogus and illegal income tax refunds to officers and staff of Bokaro Steel Plant.
2. These refunds were issued for FY 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-
14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 as has been accepted by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi.
3. Bokaro Steel Plant paid salary and perks to their officials separately and deducted tax on both the amounts. However, while uploading the data for income tax purposes, amount of perks were not uploaded whereas the tax was deducted on both the amounts.
4. Non-inclusion of perks into salary income resulted in lower tax liability whereas the tax was deducted on both the items i.e. on salary income and perks were paid to them. Huge bogus refund were claimed by some tax consultants and issued accordingly to the tax payers.
5. This matter of huge financial fraud was exposed by me as many tax payers had approached my office for this illegal act but were denied by my office in spite of offer of 50% of illegal refunds as fee to be paid to my office. But some louts and consultants took illegal advantage of this and filed ITRs by omitting perks income because this amount was not being reflected in the Form 26AS of the Income Tax Department.
6. Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name & designation of all Assessing Officers posted at Bokaro, Jharkhand upon whom responsibility has been fixed for not CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 8 of 23 initiating recovery proceedings within time in respect of bogus refund issued for the A.Y. 2013-14.
2. Total re-assessment notices issued as at sl. 1 above.
Reply: With due respect, I would like to state that this current jurisdictional Ward-3(1), Bokaro has been created after the merging of Circle-3(1), Bokaro and other five wards of the erstwhile Range-3, Bokaro as per the direction of the CBDT in the month of September, 2020. It is most respectfully submitted that the information requested by the applicant is not maintained, held, or available in the records of this office.
(3) CIC file no. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414: Vide the RTI Request Registration No. CBODT/R/E/22/01028, the applicant had requested to furnish the following information Sub(1) "Huge Bogus Income Tax Refund to more than 100 crores in 12000 cases issued to officers and employees of Bokaro Steel Plant. No timely action taken by officers of Income Tax Department listed below for recovery of Revenue Loss under deep rooted conspiracy.
Sub (2) Huge corruption by Officers of Bokaro Income Tax Office and some of their senior officers who shared the scam money among themselves preventing them to take action against whom refunds were issued on account of non-inclusion of perks amount to the salary income causing illegal refunds to officers and staffs of the Bokaro Steel Plant.
Ref: (1) Information received from Bokaro Steel Plant continuing payment of Rs. 73,10,76,220/- as perks to 3422 executives of Bokaro Steel Plant during the financial year 2010-11 alone. Another information for the subsequent FY 2011-12 confirming payment of Rs. 76,45,18,301/- to 3435 executives were paid.
1. With deepest regrets I wish to bring some facts regarding huge financial fraud committed by Officers of Income Tax Department Bokaro on account of issuing bogus and illegal income tax refunds to officers and staff of Bokaro Steel Plant.
2. These refunds were issued for FY 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013- 14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 as has been accepted by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Ranchi.
3. Bokaro Steel Plant paid salary and perks to their officials separately and deducted tax on both the amounts. However, while uploading the data for income tax purposes, amount of perks were not uploaded whereas the tax was deducted on both the amounts.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 9 of 23
4. Non-inclusion of perks into salary income resulted in lower tax liability whereas the tax was deducted on both the items i.e. on salary income and perks were paid to them. Huge bogus refund were claimed by some tax consultants and issued accordingly to the tax payers.
5. This matter of huge financial fraud was exposed by me as many tax payers had approached my office for this illegal act but were denied by my office in spite of offer of 50% of illegal refunds as fee to be paid to my office. But some louts and consultants took illegal advantage of this and filed ITRs by omitting perks income because this amount was not being reflected in the Form 26AS of the Income Tax Department.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name & designation of all Assessing Officers posted at Bokaro, Jharkhand upon whom responsibility has been fixed for not initiating recovery proceedings within time in respect of bogus refund issued for the A.Y. 2013-14.
2. Total re-assessment notices issued as at sl. 1 above.
Reply: With due respect, I would like to state that this current jurisdictional Ward-3(1), Bokaro has been created after the merging of Circle-3(1), Bokaro and other five wards of the erstwhile Range-3, Bokaro as per the direction of the CBDT in the month of September, 2020. It is most respectfully submitted that the information requested by the applicant is not maintained, held, or available in the records of this office.
Further, I would like to state the following points for kind perusal and sympathetic consideration Sir:
1. Upon a thorough perusal and verification of the official RTI Online Portal under the code of the undersigned, it is hereby submitted that no RTI application is currently pending for disposal against the applicant as of today's date as claimed by the applicant in the appeal that "There is no reply from the CPIO until today.
2. It is further clarified that a formal reply to every RTI application received in the code of the undersigned has been duly provided to the respective applicants. These responses were formulated and dispatched based on the facts and information available on record at the time of processing, in strict accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 10 of 23
3. The current jurisdictional Ward-3(1), Bokaro has been created after the merging of Circle-3(1), Bokaro and other five wards of the erstwhile Range-3, Bokaro, as per the direction of the CBDT in the month of September, 2020. The nomenclature and the working module have also been changed of all the newly created ward and circle office.
4. On going through the content of the RTI applications filed by the applicant, it has been found that the applications received from the applicant are repetitive in nature, often seeking information on issues that have already been addressed in previous correspondences. The applicant is asking the same question in different ways. This appears to be an attempt to disproportionately divert the resources of this public authority.
5. Processing these voluminous and repetitive requests requires a disproportionate diversion of man-hours. This hinders our ability to fulfil our primary administrative duties and serve the general public efficiently.
6. The tone and frequency of the applications suggest that the primary motive is not to obtain information in the public interest, but to overwhelm the Public Information Officer (PIO) and create a state of administrative paralysis.
Inference:
The overall general inference regarding the RTI applications filed by Sri. R.R. Tripathy, is as under.
The applicant is involved in all types of indiscriminate and impractical demands for the disclosure of sundry information, which are not intended to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, by misusing the RTI Act as a tool for mischief, abuse and personal vendetta of disgruntled employee, against the organization, with the malicious intention to cause oppression, intimidation and harassment of the public authority by filing multiple/repeated/vexatious/useless/obnoxious RTI applications, which are devoid of public interest but for the sole private purpose of promoting personal interest on the pretext of serving the public cause, leading to wastage of resources of the public authority, are prohibited under the rules relating to the RTI Act and hence, such applications, not only do no deserve to be entertained by the public authority but other suitable legal actions are needed to be enforced against such misuse of RTI Act CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 11 of 23 Prayer before the CIC:
On the basis of rational legal analysis of the nature and content of the RTI applications of Sri. R.R. Tripathy, concerned provisions under the RTI Act and the relevant case laws, the pre-requisites of a valid RTI petition are as under:
Sl. Pre-requisites Relevant Case laws
No.
1 The information 1.The decisions in the File No.
sought for CIC/AD/A/2013/0013255A in the case of
should not be Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain Va DTC, GNCTD, repeated Delhi dt.
25.06 2014 in brief am as under:
(i) No scope for repeating under RTI Act (4) Commission shall record ABUSE, admonish ABUSER
(iii) Waste of public time and obstructing11 is not allowed
(iv) Citizen has no light to Repeat
(v) Repetition shall be ground of refusal 2.1n Jagdish Kumr Koli Vs. Deptt. Of School education and Ineracy, MHED GOI (Appeal no, CIC/SA/A/2015/001849 decided on 25.02.20216 it is held that "repeated, frivolous and harassing RTI applications cannot be entertained
3.In the case of Siri. Nitesh Kumar Tripathy Vs. GNCTD, Delhi in file no.
CK/1S/C/2012/0008595A, CIC/LS/C/2012/0008605A, CIC/LS/C/2012/0008615A, CIC/LS/C/2012/0008625A, CIC/LS/C/2012/0008635A, CIC/LS/C/2012/0008655A, CIC/15/C/2012/0008665A, CIC/LS/C/2012/0000675A CIC/LS/C/2012/0008685A, CIC/LS/C/2012/0008695A, CIC/LS/C/2012/0008705A.
CIC/LS/C/2012/0008725A, the CIC
observed as under
All the PIOs of the Public Authority
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 12 of 23 submitted that the 694 number of KIT applications were received by them. The CIC observed as under
"Almost all of his RTI applications are the photostat copies containing the same questions. It is a reckless way of seeking information which nobody knows whether the same is supported by any public interest. The applicant has cultivated a habit of sending photostat copies in a format which were given as KTI Applications, sometimes even without filling the blanks. He doesn't attend, appear for inspection, appear before First Appellate Authority or the Commission.
In response to this second appeal, 13 doctors attended the hearing. They represented that their precious time needed to be used for patients, an emergency medical case is being spent on such needless, non serious questions without any purpose. They appealed to the Commission to prevent such misuse of RTI Act by people like appellant in this case. The information furnished by the responded authorities is relevant, since his appeals do not disclose why he was not satisfied. Hence all the above 13 appeals/complaints are dismissed.
The Commission considers this case the case of repetitive use of RTI assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and reckless abuses of RTI."
4. In the case of Sri. Rajinder K Singla vs. Ministry of Human Resource (decided on 5 April, 2016) in appeals Nos.
CIC/CC/A/2015/0021575A, CIC/CC/A/2015/002158SA, CIC/CC/A/2015/0021595A, CIC/CC/A/2015/0021605A and CIC/CC/A/2015/0021615A, the CIC found that the respondent officer submitted CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 13 of 23 that the appellant was in habit of filing RTI applications, which are frivolous and having no public interest and had filed nearly 250 RTI applications so far. The information asked by the appellant in the above five appeals was of no use to him and he went on filing appeals and thus harassing the Public Authority, CIC ruled that the appellant was abusing the RTI and directed the CPIO to reject the appellant's RTI applications at his level, as there was no public interest involved in the same.
5.In the case of Dinesh Kumar Kesarwani V. PIO, Allahabad Museum, CIC/ALDMU/A/2017/102135, decided on 24.04.2017, the CIC observed that the appellant had filed RTI petitions in the range of 400-500 and the decision of the CIC were as under: Sri. Dinesh Kumar Kesarwani is a habitual and a disgruntled person who keeps filing multiple RTI applications. This has to be discouraged as such RTI applications will impede the process of inquiry.
This case as the case of repetitive use of RTI assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and thus, abuse of RTI, by a disgruntled person.
The respondent officers were compelled to spend most of the time in answering harassingly repeated questions about the same subject matter repeatedly asked from different angles and about individual officers, whom, the applicant assumed to be responsible for the grievance.
RTI: Not a rendezvous of a disgruntled element.
6.In Prem Prakash Kumar V NFL, Panipat (Decision no. 246/IC(A)/2006, F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00374 & 375 dated 28 CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 14 of 23 August 2006) the appellant sought documents and specific comments of CPIO on 89 queries. The Learned Commissioner Shri M.M. Ansari observed that in fact, the nature of queries and the information sought are such that the information seeker would never be satisfied because the promotion of self-interest, rather than public interest, was dominant, as the appellant had sought redressal of grievances.
7. In the case of Sh. Sudhir Kumar Vs. Directorate of Education, East District, GNCTD, Delhi File No. CIC/DS/A/2013/0017345A, decided on 22.08.2014, the CIC has objected to even single repetition of the information sought for and the applicant should ask all possible aspects of information about the subject matter, once and for all.
2 The Information 1.As per the CIC case law in (1) Anjana G sought for Doshi Vs. SBBJ, Appeal no. 2076 and should frivolous 2077/ICPB/2008 decided on 28.05.2008 not be and (ii) Amit Kumar Vs. Indian Grassland and fodder search institute No. CIC/AT/C/2009/000356 decided on 01.10.2009, this Act has not been framed to take away the time of the public authority on frivolous applications.
2. Section 8 does not mean that the public authority is a required to entertain all sorts of frivolous applications. (S.I. Lal Vs. Ministry of Railways, Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00268/272 decided on 29.12.2006 by CIC.
3 It should be in 1. Denial of information is justified when Public interest the applicant has not indicated as to what is the public interest in seeking official details of the employee (K. Kiran Kumar Vs. BSNL, Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2008/00086 decided on 27.03.2008 by CIC.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 15 of 23
2. No public interest is involved in the disclosure of personal details of an employee, Ms. V. Banumathy Vs. Department of Post, F. No. CIC/MA/A/2008/00162 decided on 01.10.2008 by CIC
3. Disclosure of information related to person and official details of an employee is not in the public interest (Ashok K Khanna Vs. BSNL, F. No. CIC/MA/A/2008/00168 decided on 30.09.2008 by CIC
4. Disclosure of personal information which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual is exempted from the disclosure unless the CPIO is satisfied that the disclosure is in large public interest. (Rajinder J Singh Vs. AIIMS, Appeal no. 272/JCPB/2006 decided on 10.01.2007 by CIC.
5. Refusal of information is justified because appellant could not explain what was the public interest in disclosure. [R Swaminathan Vs. National Aviation Company of India Ltd.
CIC/MA/A/2008/1148 (CIC)]
6. What is the public interest in disclosure of information, should be disclosed.
[Rajendra Singh Bhati Vs. IOCL, CIC/MA/A/2008/389(CIC] 4 Internal report 1.The decision in the case of Rajesh should not be Manna Lal Kataria Vs. AddI. CIT, Pune, F. sought for, from No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01496 decided on lower authority 16.05.2008 is as under-
"A copy of communication sent by the Commissioner of Income Tax-l, Pune to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune which was forwarded by the letter to the Central Board of Direct Taxes sought the Respondents argued that when a superior body calls for a report from the lower officer, the report so CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 16 of 23 submitted comes within the control of the superior body and should be sought from there the Commission held that the report of the Commissioner is held by the CBDT u/s 201 therefore, the decision whether or not to disclose this report and the reasons thereof can be best taken by the CBDT and not the officers below the Commission held that the decision of the respondents not to disclose the requested information was valid under the provisions of the Act the Commission observed that the appellant may approach to the CBDT for information.
5 Information in In the case of Dr. P.K. Rathore Vs. public domain University of Delhi, F. No. should not be CIC/OK/A/2007/01478 decided on asked for 24.03.2008, it is held that, information know to everybody is not required to be informed/disclosed 6 Information The RTI Act, 2005 does not allow an regarding fishing information seeker to seek information enquiries should which resembles to be fishing enquiries.
not be sought for 1.In the case of Sri. Kishanlal Mittal Vs.
RBI, in appeal no.
CIC/SG/A/2011/003606/17258/VS
decided on 04.10.2013, ICI held that
"It was also said that requests such as
that of the RTI applicant in this case were
in the nature of "Fishing and roving"
queries and would, if brought within the
ambit of the term "information' led to a
situation where the public authority's
focus and energy would get diverted."
7 Direct filing of In violation of the case law of the Apex
appeal/complaint Court in the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand
CIC ignoring the Sachdev and others Vs. State of
FAA is Maharashtra and others, 2011(2) SCC 782
permissible if the that:-"23 In our opinion, therefore, the
efficacious High Court rightly dismissed the petition
alternative on the ground that efficacious remedy
remedy is not was available to the appellants under
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 17 of 23 available section 17 of the Act. It is well settled that ordinary relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person."- the appellant filed the direct appeal to the CIC where the appeals were dismissed.
8 RTI is not a tool In the case of G.L. Jain Vs. LIC of India, F. for personal No. CIC/AT/C/2008/00179 decided on vendetta 15.09.2008, it is held that if the petitioner lodges a complaint against the Assessing Officer cum CPIO, and seeks information through RTI petition then this is clear-cut evidence of personal interest of the petitioner.
9 Flooding of As held in the case of Pushpa Vs. Guru Teg similar RTI Bahadur Hospital, complaint no. petitions to CIC/PB/C/2008/00304, 00310, 00866 and harass CPIO is 00868 decided on 24.11.2008, this Act is not permissible an instrument, cannot be used either to under Act harass or to obstruct the functioning of a public authority.
10 The information (H.K. Bansal Vs. DOT, New Delhi,
asked should not CIC/BS/A/2014/0023195A)
be disgruntled
employee of the
Department,
whose CPIOs are
being flooded
with similar RTI
petitions
11 It should not be As per the case law in Milap Choraria Vs.
personal CBDT, Income Tax Return (ITR) is personal
information information exempted from disclosure.
Further as per the case law in (1) H.N.
Shah Vs. IT Department (F.No.
CIC/MA/A/2008/00156 decided on
30.06.2008) (ii) K Sachdeva Vs. DGIT, (F.
No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00170 decided on
30.06.2008), disclosure of income tax
assessment is prohibited u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 18 of 23 Decision
12. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the present matters have been filed as complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005. The scope of adjudication under Section 18 is limited to examining whether there has been any mala fide denial of information, unreasonable delay, or any other violation attracting penal consequences under the RTI Act. It is well settled that proceedings under Section 18 of the RTI Act do not confer any right upon the Complainant to seek directions for disclosure of information, unless such violation is clearly established. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
13. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. It is noted that the Respondent has already replied to the above RTI applications. The Respondent CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 19 of 23 has also filed written submissions where the complete factual position of the above cases was informed as per the records available with them. Moreover, the Complainant did not appear before the Commission despite service of notice to contest his cases. The Commission also notes that the Complainant did not avail the statutory remedy of filing a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act against the replies furnished by the CPIO, nor has he demonstrated any deliberate denial of information or mala fide intent on the part of the Respondent so as to attract the provisions of Section 18 of the RTI Act.
14. The Commission observes that the scope of adjudication under the RTI Act is limited to examining whether the information sought is held by the Public Authority and whether the same has been provided or is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the Act. The Commission is not empowered to adjudicate disputes relating to correctness of records, redressal of grievances, or to direct creation, interpretation or analysis of information.
15. The Commission further observes that the Respondent has furnished the information as available on record and permissible under the RTI Act. The Complainant has not been able to demonstrate any specific deficiency or illegality in the reply furnished by the Respondent. Mere dissatisfaction with the contents of the reply or expectation of additional information beyond the records held by the Public Authority does not constitute a valid ground for intervention by the Commission.
16. It is also noted that the RTI Act does not cast an obligation upon the Public Authority to collate information from various sources, draw inferences, or provide clarifications, opinions or explanations to the applicant. The role of the Commission is confined to ensuring access to existing records, subject to statutory exemptions.
17. It is also noted that the Complainant has not placed on record any cogent evidence to establish that the Respondent acted with mala fide intent, deliberately withheld information, or caused obstruction in furnishing information. Mere dissatisfaction with the replies provided or the outcome of administrative or vigilance processes does not constitute a violation of the RTI Act.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 20 of 23
18. It is relevant to quote the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
"61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
19. The Commission finds no mala fide on part of the CPIO. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the CPIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant complaint.
20. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 2400 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 80 complaint cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications 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. The Commission, like on several occasions in the past, again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his rights under the Right to Information Act in future.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 21 of 23
21. The Respondent during the hearing submitted that the Complainant has not served a copy of the instant complaints upon the Respondent. The Commission would like to remind the Complainant of the fact that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is crucial for fairness, transparency, and due process in legal proceedings and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bona fide interest of the Appellant/Complainant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The requirement of advanced service is in accordance with the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the facts of filing a case in CIC, arguments of the Complainant and reason for discontentment. It has been the experience that where the Complainant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority has tried proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject or by providing revised and updated reply/information to the Complainant before the matter reaches for the hearing. This ultimately results in faster delivery of information, thus leading to a more efficient and effective Appeal/Complaint disposal. It also reduces the time, energy and efforts of the Commission and Respondent Public Authority in early disposal. It is in his own interest for the Complainant to serve an advance copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents.
22. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Commission finds no infirmity in the action of the Respondent. No case is made out for intervention of the Commission under the RTI Act, 2005.
The above-mentioned Complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 22 of 23 011- 26181927 CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631146, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632414 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/632415 Page 23 of 23 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)