Central Information Commission
Mrrajeev Mohan vs Cbdt on 10 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/000078+000077/9943
10 March 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Mohan,
Assistant Director of IT -3,
Pragya Bhawan, DGRTI,
Bhibhuti Khand,
Lucknow- 226010
Respondent : CPIO / Under Secretary(Ad.VI),
CBDT
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
New Delhi
CPIO / Under Secretary (Ad.VII),
CBDT
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
New Delhi
CPIO / DIT (HRD),
Department of Income Tax
O/o the DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX
(HRD) 2ND FLOOR, ICADR BUILDING,
PLOT NO.
6, VASANT KUNJ INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
PHASE- II, NEW DELHI-110070
CPIO / Under Secretary (V & L),
CBDT
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
New Delhi
ITO (Admn),
Department of Income Tax,
O/o the CCIT (CCA), U.P.(West) Region,
2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines,
Kanpur
Page 1 of 3
RTI application filed on : 09/09/2013 & 04/06/2013
PIO replied on : 01/10/2013
First appeal filed on : 30/10/2013 & 06/08/2013
First Appellate Authority order : No Order
Second Appeal dated : 05/02/2015
Information sought:
File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/000078 The appellant through 13 queries has sought the information on the action taken report on the CCIT (CCA), Kanpur against the grievance. Inform the name and address of the aggrieved Income Tax Officers complaining that out from 141 promotions to the post of ACIT which had included 5 promotions of income tax officers out from quashed & illegal gradation list prepared clandestinely in the year 2002 by hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide its order dated 13/04/2012. Provide the details about the conclusion through which it was known that promotion had wrongly been done. Also wants to know the name & address of the person who was eligible for promotion but was denied promotion owning to one wrong promotion and the name & address of the person who was not eligible for promotion but was given promotion. Provide the copy of the SLP filed with supreme court with the request to ignore delay in filing such SLP. And various other related information related to the action to be taken against the officers who did the illegal promotions and procedure of reward giving to person who unearthed fraud with the departmental working for the good of others.
File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/000077 The appellant has sought the information whether Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India were kept in mind by the Income Tax Department while illegally framing the ingredients of inter charge rule for the employees, if yes, supply the copies of relevant notings of the file folders related to the circular dt. 14/05/1990. And the copies of documents which empowers the different central govt. department to frame its own rule for its inter charge transferees. Also supply the copy of any govt. instruction elaborating therein that the income tax officials are to be treated differently whole on inter change transfers and other related information.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Mohan through TC M:07599101709; Respondent: Mr. Brij Mohan, CPIO(Ad.VI) and Mr. P. Chawla, CPIO(V&L); Mr. Pradeep, CPIO(HRD); Mr. J. S. Meena, CPIO(AD-VII) and Mr. A. K. Awasthi, CPIO-Kanpur through VC;
It is seen that the information sought in both the appeals pertain to service related matter of the appellant and hence are heard together and disposed of by a common order.
The CPIOs stated that it is apparent from a plain reading of the appellant's RTI applications that he is mostly seeking interpretation/clarification of rules which is not covered by the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. He further stated that point wise response was sent to him vide letter dated 01/10/2013. The appellant stated that he is not satisfied and would like to inspect the relevant records. The CPIOs agreed.Page 2 of 3
Decision notice:
At the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act.
The CPIOs are directed to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI applications dated 04/06/2013 and 09/09/2013, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 3 of 3