Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 4 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/2023/629647, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629649,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629662, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629676,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629648, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629430,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629652, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/628388,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629427, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629656,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629658, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629661,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629432, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630059,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629428, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630032,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629659, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629667,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629657, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629588,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629668, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629670,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630212, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629671,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629654, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629677,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629587, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630208,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629666, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629664,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630237, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630207,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629422, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629669,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629426, CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631561,
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630261 and CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631149
(38 cases)
Radha Raman Tripathy ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001
2. CPIO
Income Tax Officer (HQ),
CCIT, Ranchi, Central Revenue
Building, 5A, Mahatama Gandhi
Road, Ranchi - 824001
Page 1 of 73
3. CPIO
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Ranchi, Central Revenue Building,
5 Main Road, Ranchi - 834001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 23.01.2026
Date of Decision : 04.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Complaint cases are clubbed together as the
Complainant as well as the Respondents are common and subject-matter is
similar in nature and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629647
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020
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 : 16.06.2023
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to decision of Hon. CIC vide No. CIC/CCAPT/626844-BJ.
The CIC has observed as under:
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear Page 2 of 73 that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Further the CIC has decided as under:-
The Commission therefore instructs the Chairman, CBDT to depute an official of an appropriate seniority to examine and analyze the glitches in the technical software so as to initiate measures for its rectification within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance of the said decision should necessarily be intimated to the Complainant under endorsement to the Commission.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Action taken on Mr. SK Roy, JCIT and CPIO for his negligent approach and direction of duties in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Name and Designation of the Officer deputed by the Chairman, CBDT to enquire in the glitches as instructed by CIC.
3. Copy of report of Officer as at sl.2 above until today.
4. 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/2023/629649 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020
Page 3 of 73
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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
4. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to decision of Hon. CIC vide No. CIC/CCAPT/637156-BJ.
The CIC has observed as under:
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/ faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Further the CIC has decided as under:-
The Commission therefore instructs the Chairman, CBDT to depute an official of an appropriate seniority to examine and analyze the glitches in the technical software so as to initiate measures for its rectification within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance of the said decision should necessarily be intimated to the Complainant under endorsement to the Commission.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Action taken on Mr. SK Roy, JCIT and CPIO for his negligent approach and deriction of duties in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Name and Designation of the Officer deputed by the Chairman, CBDT to enquire in the glitches as instructed by CIC.Page 4 of 73
3. Copy of report of Officer as at sl.2 above until today.
4. 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/2023/629662 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
7. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"It was observed by Hon. ClC in its order Vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/616642- BJ as under.
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, Page 5 of 73 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name of the officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Copy of report as at sl.1 above.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of CIC order.
4. The fee is paid online."
8. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629676 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 24.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
10. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 24.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in view of Order of CIC vide No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637363.
1. Action taken on CPIO in view of Order as above.Page 6 of 73
2. The fee is paid online."
11. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
12. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629648 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
13. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to decision of Hon. CIC vide No. CIC/CCAPT/632525-BJ.
The CIC has observed as under:
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/ faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.Page 7 of 73
Further the CIC has decided as under-
The Commission therefore instructs the Chairman, CBDT to depute an official of an appropriate seniority to examine and analyze the glitches in the technical software so as to initiate measures for its rectification within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance of the said decision should necessarily be intimated to the Complainant under endorsement to the Commission Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Action taken on Mr. SK Roy, JCIT and CPIO for his negligent approach and direction of duties in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Name and Designation of the Officer deputed by the Chairman, CBDT to enquire in the glitches as instructed by CIC.
3. Copy of report of Officer as at sl.2 above until today.
4. The fee is paid online."
14. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
15. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629430 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.05.2020 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 : 15.06.2023 Information sought:
16. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
Page 8 of 73"kindly refer to order of CIC vide NO.CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637223-BJ.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Action taken on the CPIO in view of above order for his negligent approach and disrespect to the RTI Act.
2. The fee is paid online."
17. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
18. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629652 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
19. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to decision of Hon. CIC vide No. CIC/CCAPT/616649-BJ.
The CIC has observed as under:
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly Page 9 of 73 collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Further the CIC has decided as under:-
The Commission therefore instructs the Chairman, CBDT to depute an official of an appropriate seniority to examine and analyze the glitches in the technical software so as to initiate measures for its rectification within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance of the said decision should necessarily be intimated to the Complainant under endorsement to the Commission.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Action taken on Mr. SK Roy, JCIT and CPIO for his negligent approach and direction of duties in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Name and Designation of the Officer deputed by the Chairman, CBDT to enquire in the glitches as instructed by CIC.
3. Copy of report of Officer as at sl.2 above until today.
4. The fee is paid online."
20. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
21. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/628388 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 28.03.2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
Page 10 of 73
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.06.2023 Information sought:
22. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.03.2019 (online) seeking the following information:
"A huge bogus IT refund has been issued from Income Tax Office, Bokaro during the F.Y. 2009-10,2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 on account of not adding perks to the total income of the officers of Bokaro Steel Plant. This matter was brought to the notice of all Top Officials of Finance Ministry including CBDT, Rev. Secretary and others. This matter was not given importance at any level. I have in my possession information provided under RTI Act by Bokaro Steel Plant which shows that more than Rs.73 crores of perks were not added to the salary income resulting in huge bogus refund as TDS were made on this amount.
The PCIT, Hazaribagh protected his subordinates Mr. PK Mondal and Sri S.K Roy, both JCITs, Bokaro and closed my genuine complaints under deep rooted conspiracy terming my complaints as baseless.
More than 100 cars. of revenue appears to have been siphoned off from single place.
Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act:
1. Total amount of Income Tax refund issued during the period from 01-
04-2017 to 28-03-2018 (JCITs wise)
2. Total amount of Income Tax refund issued during the period from 01- 04-2018 to 28-03-2019 (JCITs wise)
3. The fee is paid online."
23. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
24. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 11 of 73CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629427 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.05.2020 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 : 15.06.2023 Information sought:
25. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"kindly refer to order of CIC vide NO.CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637154-BJ.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Action taken on the CPIO in view of above order for his negligent approach and disrespect to the RTI Act.
2. The fee is paid online."
26. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
27. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629656 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Page 12 of 73 Information sought:
28. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"It was observed by Hon. ClC in its order Vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/632526- BJ as under:
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/ faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name of the officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Copy of report as at sl.1 above.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of CIC order.
4. The fee is paid online."
29. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
30. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 13 of 73CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629658 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
31. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"It was observed by Hon. ClC in its order Vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/609546- BJ as under:
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamounts to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name of the officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Copy of report as at sl.1 above.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of CIC order.
4. The fee is paid online."Page 14 of 73
32. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
33. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629661 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
34. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"It was observed by Hon. CIC in its order Vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/613476- BJ as under:
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamounts to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/ faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Kindly provide me the following information:Page 15 of 73
1. Name of the officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Copy of report as at sl.1 above.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of CIC order.
4. The fee is paid online."
35. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
36. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629432 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.05.2020 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 : 15.06.2023 Information sought:
37. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Action taken on my complaint against Mr. BK Singh, DCIT, Bokaro sent though email dated 14/02/2020.
2. The fee is paid online."
38. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
Page 16 of 7339. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630059 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.07.2020 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 : 19.06.2023 Information sought:
40. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.07.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Period of posting of Mr. Braj Kishore Singh presently working as DCIT at Bokaro from the date of joining Income Tax Department until today.
2. Designation held by Mr. B.K.Singh as at S1. 1.
41. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
42. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629428 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.05.2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
Page 17 of 73
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15.06.2023
Information sought:
43. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"kindly refer to order of CIC vide NO.CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637369-BJ.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Action taken on the CPIO in view of above order for his negligent approach and disrespect to the RTI Act.
2. The fee is paid online."
44. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
45. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630032 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.05.2020 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 : 15.06.2023 Information sought:
46. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"kindly refer to order of CIC vide NO.CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637369-BJ.Page 18 of 73
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Action taken on the CPIO in view of above order for his negligent approach and disrespect to the RTI Act.
2. The fee is paid online."
47. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
48. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629659 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
49. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"It was observed by Hon. CIC in its order Vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/634057 - BJ as under.
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Page 19 of 73 submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name of the officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Copy of report as at sl.1 above.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of CIC order.
4. The fee is paid online."
50. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
51. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629667 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
52. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"It was observed by Hon. CIC in its order Vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/637154- BJ as under.Page 20 of 73
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/ faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name of the officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Copy of report as at sl.1 above.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of CIC order.
4. The fee is paid online."
53. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
54. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629657 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record Page 21 of 73 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
55. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"It was observed by Hon. CIC in its order Vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/637157- BJ as under:
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name of the officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Copy of report as at sl.1 above.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of CIC order.
4. The fee is paid online."
56. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
57. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 22 of 73CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629588 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
58. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Action taken on my complaint against Mr. BK Singh, DCIT, Bokaro sent though email dated 27/03/2020.
2. The fee is paid online."
59. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
60. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629668 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.03.2023 Page 23 of 73 Information sought:
61. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"It was observed by Hon. CIC in its order Vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/637369- BJ as under.
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/ faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name of the officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Copy of report as at sl.1 above.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of CIC order.
4. The fee is paid online."
62. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
63. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 24 of 73CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629670 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
64. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in view of Order of CIC vide No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/628963.
1. Action taken on CPIO in view of Order as above.
2. Name of the Officer who was deputed to make enquiry in view of CIC order as above.
3. Copy of Report submitted as directed by CIC.
4. The fee is paid online."
65. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
66. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630212 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.10.2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
Page 25 of 73
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.06.2023 Information sought:
67. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.10.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Recently a case has been registered by Hon. Lokpal of India on my complaints for issue of bogus and illegal refunds to Officers of Bokaro Steel Plant for the AYs 2009-10 to 2016-17, as accepted by CCIT, Ranchi. This refund arose due to non inclusion of perks into salary income the said officers. Bokaro Steel Plant failed to upload the perks amount on 26 AS, whereas tax was deducted on both amounts.
Assessing Officers of Bokaro were timely informed by me for issuing notices u/s 147 of the IT Act for re-assessment and recovery of illegal refunds but they failed to do so as they shared the amount 50-50 from the officers to whom such bogus refunds were issued. This issue was raised by me. several times but no action was taken either by Mr. PK Mondal, JCIT, Mr. SK Roy, JCIT, Mr. BK Singh, DCIT, Mr. TK Dutta, PCIT(Now in jail, arrested by CBI) and Mr. RB Naik, PCIT, Hazaribagh as such several thousand cases became time barred and huge revenue was lost.
Out of more than 12000 cases of bogus refund amounting to more than 100 crores of rupees, action in only 345 cases were taken as accepted by CCIT, Ranchi.
Similar practice is being followed at many places like Durgapur, Bhilai Rourkela Steel Plant Vizag Steel Plant and other PSUs like CCL,BCCL, WCL etc. all over the country.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all PCCIT Charges.
1. Total Number of Assessing Officers having jurisdiction of Salary Cases of Public Sector Undertakings (All PCCIT charge wise).Page 26 of 73
2. Total number of cases in which perks were not added to the salary income of the respective assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to Α.Υ 2016-17.
3. Total amount of refund issued without adding Perks income in their ITRs for the period as at sl.2 above. (Year wise)
4. Total amount recovered out of bogus refund issued as at sl.3 Above.
5. The fee is paid online."
68. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
69. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629671 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
70. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in view of Order of CIC vide No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637366.
1. Action taken on CPIO in view of Order as above.
2. The fee is paid online."Page 27 of 73
71. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
72. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629654 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
73. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"It was observed by Hon. CIC in its order Vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/627091 - BJ as under:
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/ faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Kindly provide me the following information:Page 28 of 73
1. Name of the officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Copy of report as at sl.1 above.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of CIC order.
4. The fee is paid online."
74. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
75. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629677 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
76. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in view of Order of CIC vide No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637666.
1. Action taken on CPIO in view of Order as above.
2. The fee is paid online."Page 29 of 73
77. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
78. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629587 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
79. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Action taken on my complaint against Mr. BK Singh, DCIT, Bokaro sent though email dated 22/03/2020.
2. The fee is paid online."
80. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
81. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 30 of 73CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630208 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 06.10.2020 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 : 20.06.2023 Information sought:
82. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Recently a case has been registered by Hon. Lokpal of India on my complaints for issue of bogus and illegal refunds to Officers of Bokaro Steel Plant for the AYs 2009-10 to 2016-17, as accepted by CCIT, Ranchi. This refund arose due to non-inclusion of perks into salary income the said officers. Bokaro Steel Plant failed to upload the perks amount on 26 AS, whereas tax was deducted on both amounts.
Assessing Officers of Bokaro were timely informed by me for issuing notices u/s 147 of the IT Act for re-assessment and recovery of illegal refunds but they failed to do so as they shared the amount 50-50 from the officers to whom such bogus refunds were issued. This issue was raised by me several times but no action was taken either by Mr. PK Mondal, JCIT, Mr. SK Roy, JCIT, Mr. BK Singh, DCIT, Mr. TK Dutta, PCIT(Now in jail, arrested by CBI) and Mr. RB Naik, PCIT, Hazaribagh as such several thousand cases became time barred and huge revenue was lost.
Out of more than 12000 cases of bogus refund amounting to more than 100 crores of rupees, action in only 345 cases were taken as accepted by CCIT, Ranchi.
Similar practice is being followed at many places like Durgapur, Bhilai Rourkela Steel Plant Vizag Steel Plant and other PSUs like CCL, BCCL, WCL etc. all over the country.Page 31 of 73
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all PCCIT Charges.
1. Total Number of Assessing Officers having jurisdiction of Salary Cases of Public Sector Undertakings (All PCCIT charge wise).
2. Total number of cases in which perks were not added to the salary income of the respective assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to Α.Υ 2016-17.
3. Total amount of refund issued without adding Perks income in their ITRs for the period as at sl.2 above. (Year wise)
4. Total amount recovered out of bogus refund issued as at sl.3 Above.
5. The fee is paid online."
83. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
84. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629666 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
85. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
Page 32 of 73"It was observed by Hon. CIC in its order Vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/600149 - BJ as under:
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/ faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name of the officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Copy of report as at sl.1 above.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of CIC order.
4. The fee is paid online."
86. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
87. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629664 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
Page 33 of 73
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.06.2023 Information sought:
88. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"It was observed by Hon. ClC in its order Vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/626832- BJ as under.
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name of the officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of order of CIC as above.
2. Copy of report as at sl.1 above.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of CIC order.
4. The fee is paid online."
89. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
Page 34 of 7390. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630237 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 15.10.2020 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 : 20.06.2023 Information sought:
91. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 15.10.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"A survey was conducted in the office of an Advocate, consequent upon my repeated complaints on Bogus Refund Scam issue at Bokaro. A cutting of the newspaper is attached for reference. Since the office of the JCIT, Bokaro is a den of corruption, no substantial action for recovery of bogus refund of more than 100 crores of rupees have been taken.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Action taken on the Advocate after recovery of forged rubber stamp of CA and Doctors in his office until today.
2. The fee is paid online."
92. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
93. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 35 of 73CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630207 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 06.10.2020 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 : 20.06.2023 Information sought:
94. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Recently a case has been registered by Hon. Lokpal of India on my complaints for issue of bogus and illegal refunds to Officers of Bokaro Steel Plant for the AYs 2009-10 to 2016-17, as accepted by CCIT, Ranchi. This refund arose due to non-inclusion of perks into salary income the said officers. Bokaro Steel Plant failed to upload the perks amount on 26 AS whereas tax was deducted on both amounts.
Assessing Officers of Bokaro were timely informed by me for issuing notices u/s 147 of the IT Act for re-assessment and recovery of illegal refunds but they failed to do so as they shared the amount 50-50 from the officers to whom such bogus refunds were issued. This issue was raised by me several times but no action was taken either by Mr. PK Mondal, JCIT, Mr. SK Roy, JCIT, Mr. BK Singh, DCIT, Mr. TK Dutta, PCIT (Now in jail, arrested by CBI) and Mr. RB Naik, PCIT, Hazaribagh as such several thousand cases became time barred and huge revenue was lost.
Out of more than 12000 cases of bogus refund amounting to more than 100 crores of rupees, action in only 345 cases were taken as accepted by CCIT, Ranchi.
Similar practice is being followed at many places like Durgapur, Bhilai Rourkela Steel Plant, Vizag Steel Plant and other PSUs like CCL, BCCL, WCL etc. all over the country.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all PCCIT Charges.Page 36 of 73
1. Total Number of Assessing Officers having jurisdiction of Salary Cases of Public Sector Undertakings (All PCCIT charge wise).
2. Total number of cases in which perks were not added to the salary income of the respective assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to Α.Υ 2016-17.
3. Total amount of refund issued without adding Perks income in their ITRs for the period as at sl.2 above. (Year wise)
4. Total amount recovered out of bogus refund issued as at sl.3 Above.
5. The fee is paid online."
95. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
96. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629422 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 06.05.2020 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 : 15.06.2023 Information sought:
97. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"It was observed by Hon. ClC in its order Vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/637223- BJ as under.Page 37 of 73
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/ faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Action taken on Sri SK Roy, then JCIT and CPIO in view of order as above.
2. Copy of enquiry report of CCIT, Ranchi as instructed by CIC.
3. The fee is paid online."
98. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA v order is not on record.
99. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629669 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020 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 : 16.06.2023 Page 38 of 73 Information sought:
100. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information in view of Order of CIC vide No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/628963.
1. Action taken on CPIO in view of Order as above.
2. Name of the Officer who was deputed to make enquiry in view of CIC order as above.
3. Copy of Report submitted as directed by CIC.
4. The fee is paid online."
101. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
102. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629426 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 06.05.2020 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 : 15.06.2023 Information sought:
103. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"It was observed by Hon. CIC in its order Vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/634056- BJ as under.Page 39 of 73
The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/ faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Action taken on Sri SK Roy, then JCIT and CPIO in view of order as above.
2. Copy of enquiry report of CCIT, Ranchi as instructed by CIC.
3. The fee is paid online."
104. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
105. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630261 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 04.12.2020 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 : 20.06.2023 Page 40 of 73 Information sought:
106. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 04.12.2020 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Name and designation of all officers/ CPIOs on whom penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act has been imposed by CIC until today.
2. date of deposit of amount of penalty as directed by the CIC.
3. The fee is paid online."
107. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
108. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631149 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
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.06.2023 Information sought:
109. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.08.2021 (online) seeking the following information:
"My complaint PRSEC/E/2020/12883 dated 20/06/2020 has been closed on 20/10/2021 i.e. after 16 months on report of CBDT. It is strange that genuine complaints are being treated like this by CBDT. Report of CBDT has not been enclosed with this portal.Page 41 of 73
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Date on which information was received from President Secretariate for enquiry and report on my complaint registered as PRSEC/E/2020/12883 dated 20/06/2020.
2.Copy of report of CBDT which has been made the reason for closure of my complaint.
3. The fee is paid online."
110. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
111. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent despite notice.
Respondent No. 1: Shri Dinesh Gharu, Under Secretary/CPIO and Shri Ram Ishwar Yadav, Section Officer, CBDT, New Delhi appeared in person. Respondent No. 2: Shri Anjay Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Hqrs. Ranchi, appeared through video conference.
112. Proof of having served copies of Complaints on Respondent while filing the same in CIC are not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non- service.
113. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that since the matter pertained to the Ranchi Officer i.e. Respondent No. 2, hence the all the matters were transferred to the them to reply to the Complainant and also appear before the Commission.
Page 42 of 73114. The Respondent No. 2, while defending their case submitted that the information sought by the Complainant in the instant cases predominantly relates to alleged action taken against officers, enquiry reports, compliance of earlier CIC orders, and disciplinary or vigilance related matters. It was submitted that such information either does not exist in material form with the concerned office or pertains to administrative and disciplinary issues, which fall outside the purview of the RTI Act. The RTI Act does not cast any obligation on the public authority to create information, conduct enquiries, or initiate disciplinary proceedings merely because the same has been sought by an RTI applicant.
115. The Respondents further submitted that the Complainant has filed a large number of RTI applications and complaints on substantially similar issues, repeatedly seeking action taken on previous complaints and orders, which amounts to misuse of the RTI mechanism and places an undue burden on the public authority. It was categorically stated that there has been no mala fide denial of information or deliberate violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, and therefore no case is made out for invoking the penal provisions under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Besides, The Respondent No. 2 submitted that they had also filed written submissions, copies of the same were marked to the Complainant and requested the Commission to place the same on record. Contents of the submission file number wise were reproduced asunder:
116. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629647 are reproduced as under:
1. "That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.Page 43 of 73
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to the order of CIC vide no. CIC/CCAPT/2018/626844, kindly provide the following information:-
1. Action taken on Mr. S.K. Roy, JCIT and CPIO in view of above order for his negligent approach and dereliction of duties in view of the order of CIC as above-Relates to PCIT, Dhanbad.
2. Name and designation of the Officer deputed by the Chairman, CBDT to enquire in the glitches as instructed by the CIC order -Does not relate to this office.
3. Copy of report of officer as at Sl. No. 2 above until today- Does not relate to this office.
Submitted for kind information."
117. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629649 are reproduced as under:
1. "That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-"Kindly refer to the order of CIC vide no. CIC/CCAPT/2018/637156, kindly provide the following information:-
1. Action taken on Mr. S.K. Roy, JCIT and CPIO in view of above order for his negligent approach and dereliction of duties in view of the order of CIC as above-Relates to PCIT, Dhanbad.Page 44 of 73
2. Name and designation of the Officer deputed by the Chairman, CBDT to enquire in the glitches as instructed by the CIC order -Does not relate to this office.
3. Copy of report of officer as at Sl. No. 2 above until today- Does not relate to this office.
Submitted for kind information."
118. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629662 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.
1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"It was observed by the Hon'ble CIC in its order vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/616642, kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Name of the Officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of the order of CIC as above-Does not relate to this office.
2.. Copy of report as Sl. No. 1 above- Does not relate to this office.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of the CIC order-Does not relate to this office."
Submitted for kind information."
119. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629676 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.
1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.Page 45 of 73
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. In his RTI application, the applicant has requested to provide the following information;-
"Kindly provide me the following information in view of the order of CIC vide no. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637363":-
1. Action taken on CPIO in view of the order as above-Does not relate to this office.
Submitted for kind information."
120. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629648 are reproduced as under:
1. "That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to decision of Hon'ble CIC vide CIC No. vide no. CIC/CCAPT/632525. kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Action taken on Mr. S.K. Ray, JCIT and CPIO for his negligent approach and dereliction of duties in view of the order of CIC-Pertains to PCIT, Dhanbad.Page 46 of 73
2. Name and Designation of the Officer deputed by the Chairman, CBDT to enquire in the glitches as instructed by CIC-Does not relate to this office
3. Copy of report of officer as at Sl. No. 2 above until today- Does not relate to this office".
Submitted for kind information."
121. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629430 are reproduced as under:
1. "That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to the order of CIC vide no. CIC/CCAPT/2018/637223, kindly provide the following information:-
1. Action taken on CPIO in view of above order for his negligent approach and disrespect to the RTI Act-Does not relate to this office.
Submitted for kind information."
122. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629652 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.Page 47 of 73
1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link. on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to the decision of Hon'ble CIC vide no. CIC/CCAPT/616649, kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Action taken on Mr. S.K. Ray, JCIT and CPIO for his negligent approach and dereliction of duties in view of the order of CIC-Pertains to PCIT, Dhanbad.
2. Name and Designation of the Officer deputed by the Chairman, CBDT to enquire in the glitches as instructed by CIC-Does not relate to this office.
3. Copy of report of officer as at Sl. No. 2 above until today- Does not relate to this office."
Submitted for kind information."
123. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/628388 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations we.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.Page 48 of 73
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Total amount of Income tax refund issued during the period 01.04.2017 to 28.03.2018-Relates to PCIT, Dhanbad.
2. Total amount of Income tax refund issued during the period 01.04.2018 to 28.03.2019-Relates to PCIT, Dhanbad."
Submitted for kind information."
124. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629427 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to the order of CIC vide no. CIC/CCAPT/2018/637154, kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Action taken on the CPIO in view of the above order for his negligent approach and disrespect to the RTI Act-Does not relate to this office.
Submitted for kind information."
125. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629656 are reproduced as under:
Page 49 of 731. "That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to the order of CIC vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/632526, kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Name of the Officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of the order of CIC as above-Does not relate to this office.
2.. Copy of report as Sl. No. 1 above- Does not relate to this office.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of the CIC order-Does not relate to this office."
Submitted for kind information."
126. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629658 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026,
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08 2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office
3. That the R11 application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:Page 50 of 73
"Kindly refer to the order of CIC vide CIC/CCAPT/208/609546, kindly provide me the following information:
1. Name of the Officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of the order of CIC as above-Does not relate to this office.
2. Copy of report as Sl. No 1 above Does not relate to this office.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of the CIC order-Does not relate to this office."
Submitted for kind information"
127. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629661 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT. Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to the CIC order issued vide no. CIC/CCAPT/C/208/613476, kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Name of the Officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of the order of CIC as above-Does not relate to this office.
2.. Copy of report as Sl.No. 1 above- Does not relate to this office.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of the CIC order-Does not relate to this office."
Submitted for kind information."
Page 51 of 73128. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629432 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Action taken on my complaint against Mr. B.K. Singh, DCIT, Bokaro sent through e-mail dated 14.02.2020- Relates to PCIT, Dhanbad".
Submitted for kind information."
129. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630059 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly provide me the following information:-Page 52 of 73
1. Period of posting of Mr. B.K. Singh presently working as DCIT, Bokaro from the date of joining in Income Tax Department until today- Relates to PCIT, Dhanbad
2. Designation held by Mr. B.K. Singh as at Sl. No. 1- Relates to PCIT, Dhanbad".
Submitted for kind information."
130. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629428 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.
1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2020.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCTV, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:
"Kindly refer to the order of CIC vide no. CIC/ССАРТ/2018/637369, kindly provide the following information:-
1. Action taken on CPIO in view of above order for his negligent approach and disrespect to the RTI Act-Does not relate to this office.
Submitted for kind information."
131. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630032 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.Page 53 of 73
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to the order of CIC vide no. CIC/CCAPT/2018/637366, kindly provide the following information:-
1. Action taken on CPIO in view of above order for his negligent approach and disrespect to the RTI Act-Does not relate to this office.
Submitted for kind information."
132. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629659 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Name of the Officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of the order of CIC as above- Does not relate to this office
2.. Copy of report as Sl.No. 1 above- Does not relate to this office.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of the CIC order-Does not relate to this office."Page 54 of 73
Submitted for kind information."
133. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629667 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.
1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to the CIC order vide no. CIC/CCAPT/C/208/637154, kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Name of the Officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of the order of CIC as above- Does not relate to this office
2. Copy of report as Sl.No. 1 above- Does not relate to this office.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of the CIC order-Does not relate to this office. Submitted for kind information."
134. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629657 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.
1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Page 55 of 73 Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to the Hon'ble CIC order no. CIC/CCAPT/C/208/637157, kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Name of the Officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of the order of CIC as above- Does not relate to this office
2.. Copy of report as Sl.No. 1 above- Does not relate to this office.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of the CIC order-Does not relate to this office."
Submitted for kind information."
135. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629588 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.
1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to my letter (copy of the first page attached for ready reference).
1. Action taken on my complaint against Mr. B.K. Singh, DCIT, Bokaro through e-mail dated 27.03.2020- Relates to PCIT, Dhanbad".Page 56 of 73
Submitted for kind information."
136. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629668 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to CIC order no. CIC/CCAPT/C/208/637369, kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Name of the Officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of the order of CIC as above- Does not relate to this office
2.. Copy of report as Sl.No. 1 above- Does not relate to this office.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of the CIC order-Does not relate to this office.
Submitted for kind information."
137. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629670 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Page 57 of 73 Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to the order of CIC vide no. CIC/CCAPT/2018/628963, kindly provide the following information:-
1. Action taken on CPIO in view of above order for his negligent approach and disrespect to the RTI Act-Does not relate to this office.
2. Name of the Officer who was deputed to make enquiry of CIC order as above-Does not relate to this office.
3. Copy of report submitted as directed by CIC- Does not relate to this office.
Submitted for kind information."
138. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630212 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.
1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT. Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Recently the case registered by Lokpal of India on complaints for issued bogus refunds to officers of Bokaro Steel City for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2016-
17. kindly provide me the following information in respect of all PCCIT charges wise:-Page 58 of 73
1. Total no. of Assessing Officers having jurisdiction of salary cases of public sector undertaking- Does not relate to this office/relates to Jurisdictional PCCIT.
2. Total no.of cases in which perks were not added to salary income of the respective assesses for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2016-17- Does not relate to this office relates to Jurisdictional PCCIT.
3. Total amount of refund issued without adding perks income in their ITR for the period as at Sl. No. 2 above- Does not relate to this office/relates to Jurisdictional PCCIT.
4. Total amount recovered out of bogus refund issued as at Sl. No. 3 above- Does not relate to this office/relates to Jurisdictional PCCIT.
Submitted for kind information."
139. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629671 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.
1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to the order of CIC vide no. CIC/CCAPT/2018/637366, kindly provide the following information:-
1. Action taken on CPIO in view of above order for his negligent approach and disrespect to the RTI Act-Does not relate to this office.
Submitted for kind information."Page 59 of 73
140. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629654 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to order no. CIC/CCAPT/C/208/627191, kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Name of the Officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of the order of CIC as above-Relates to CBDT
2.. Copy of report as Sl.No. 1 above- Does not relate to this office.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of the CIC order-Does not relate to this office.
Submitted for kind information."
141. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629677 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.Page 60 of 73
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to the order of CIC vide no. CIC/CCAPT/2018/637666, kindly provide the following information:-
1. Action taken on CPIO in view of above order for his negligent approach and disrespect to the RTI Act-Does not relate to this office.
Submitted for kind information."
142. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629587 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.
1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link. on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations wef 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Action taken on my complaint against Mr. B.K. Singh, DCIT, Bokaro sent through e-mail dated 22.03.2020- Relates to PCIT, Dhanbad".
Submitted for kind information."
143. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630208 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.Page 61 of 73
1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"A case has been registered by Lokpal of India on complaints for issued of bogus and illegal refunds to officers of Bokaro Steel Plant for A.Y. 2009- 10 to 2016-17, kindly provide me the following information in respect of all PCCIT charges wise:-
1. Total no. of Assessing Officers having jurisdiction of salary cases of public sector undertaking- Does not relate to this office/relates to Jurisdictional PCCIT.
2. Total no. of cases in which perks were not added to salary income of the respective assesses for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2016-17- Does not relate to this office/relates to Jurisdictional PCCIT.
3. Total amount of refund issued without adding perks income in their ITR for the period as at Sl. No. 2 above- Does not relate to this office/relates to Jurisdictional PCCIT.
4. Total amount recovered out of bogus refund issued as at Sl. No. 3 above Does not relate to this office/relates to Jurisdictional PCCIT.
Submitted for kind information."
144. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629666 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.Page 62 of 73
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to CIC order no. CIC/CCAPT/C/208/600149, kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Name of the Officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of the order of CIC as above- Does not relate to this office
2.. Copy of report as Sl.No. 1 above- Does not relate to this office.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of the CIC order-Does not relate to this office."
Submitted for kind information."
145. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629664 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"Kindly refer to CIC order no. CIC/CCAPT/C/208/623832, kindly provide me the following information:-Page 63 of 73
1. Name of the Officer deputed to examine the technical glitches in view of the order of CIC as above- Does not relate to this office
2.. Copy of report as Sl.No. 1 above- Does not relate to this office.
3. Action taken on the CPIO in view of the CIC order-Does not relate to this office."
Submitted for kind information."
146. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630237 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"A survey was conducted in the office of an advocate. Consequent upon my repeated complaints on bogus refund scam issued at Bokaro. Kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Action taken on the Advocate after recovery of forged rubber stamp of CA and Doctors in hi office until today.
Submitted for kind information."Page 64 of 73
147. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630207 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"A case has been registered by Lokpal of India on complaints for issue of bogus and illegal refunds to the officers of Bokaro Steel Plant for the A.Y. 2009-10 to 2016-17. Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all PCCIT charges wise:-
1. Total no. of Assessing Officers having jurisdiction of salary cases of public sector undertaking- Does not relate to this office/relates to Jurisdictional PCCIT.
2. Total no. of cases in which perks were not added to salary income of the respective assesses for A.Υ. 2010-11 to 2016-17- Does not relate to this office/relates to Jurisdictional PCCIT.
3. Total amount of refund issued without adding perks income in their ITR for the period as at Sl. No. 2 above- Does not relate to this office/relates to Jurisdictional PCCIT.
4. Total amount recovered out of bogus refund issued as at Sl. No. 3 above- Does not relate to this office/relates to Jurisdictional PCCIT.
Submitted for kind information."Page 65 of 73
148. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629422 are reproduced as under:
"1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations we.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"It was observed by the Hon'ble CIC, in its order vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/637223. Kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Action taken on Mr. S.K. Ray, JCIT and CPIO in view of the order as above -Does not relate to this office/relates to PCIT, Dhanbad.
2. Copy of enquiry report of CCIT, Ranchi, as instructed by the CIC Does not relate to this office/relates to PCIT, Dhanbad.
Submitted for kind information."
149. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629669 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.
1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Page 66 of 73 Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"kindly provide me the following information in view of the order of CIC vide no. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/628963-
1. Action taken on CPIO in view of the order as above- Does not relate to this office.
2. Name of the officer who was deputed to make enquiry in view of the CIC order no. 628963- Does not relate to this office.
3. Copy of report submitted as directed by the CIC- Does not relate to this office.
Submitted for kind information."
150. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629426 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.
1. That I have received the notice of hearing on 22.01.2026 and complied to the same by uploading the reply of this office through the given link, on 22.01.2026.
2. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
3. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"It was observed by the Hon'ble CIC, in its order vide CIC/CCAPT/C/208/634056.Page 67 of 73
Kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Action taken on Mr. S.K. Ray, JCIT and CPIO in view of the order as above - Does not relate to this office/Relates to PCIT, Dhanbad
2. Copy of enquiry report of CCIT, Ranchi, as -Does not relate to this office/Relates to PCIT, Dhanbad. instructed by the CIC Submitted for kind information."
151. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/630261 are reproduced as under:
"With due respect, it is humbly submitted as under.
1. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
2. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under:-
"kindly provide me the following information:-
1. Name and designation of the officers/CPIOs on whom penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act has been imposed by CIC until today: No such case.
2. Date of deposit of amount of penalty as directed by the CIC: No such case."
Submitted for kind information."
152. The contents of the written Submission by the Respondent in the file No. CIC/CBODT/C/2023/631149 are reproduced as under:
"1. That the Income Tax Department underwent large-scale change in operations w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi is now acting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for Faceless Officers only. As such, no officer under CCIT, Page 68 of 73 Ranchi has been designated as CPIO as there is no public interaction with this office.
2. That the RTI application under reference received from applicant, the applicant has written as under :-
"My complaint PRSEC/E/2020/12883 dated 20/06/2020 has been closed on 20/10/2021 i.e. after 16 months on report of CBDT. It is strange that genuine complaints are being treated like this by CBDT has not been enclosed with this portal.
kindly provide me the following information :-
1. Date on which information was received from President Secretariate for enquiry and report on my complaint registered as PRSEC/E/2020/12883 dated 20/06/2020: No such information available with this office.
2. Copy of report of CBDT which had been made the reason for closure of my complaint: No such information available with this office."
Decision
153. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondents 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 Page 69 of 73 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."
154. 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 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.
155. The Commission further observes that the information sought by the Complainant in the present batch of cases largely pertains to action taken against certain officers, enquiry reports pursuant to earlier CIC orders, and allegations of corruption and illegal refunds. The Commission reiterates that the RTI Act is a transparency legislation and not a forum for grievance redressal or enforcement of disciplinary or vigilance action. The Act does not require a Public Authority to initiate investigations, take punitive action, or generate explanations or reports to satisfy the demands of an RTI applicant.
Page 70 of 73156. The Commission also takes note of the fact that the RTI applications were filed during the years 2019 and 2020, whereas the complaints were instituted before the Commission only in 2023. The Complainant has not availed the statutory remedy of filing a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, nor has any satisfactory explanation been provided for the inordinate delay in approaching the Commission. Such unexplained delay and non- exhaustion of remedies render the complaints untenable.
157. The Commission further observes that the Complainant has filed numerous RTI applications and complaint cases on substantially identical issues, repeatedly seeking action taken on earlier complaints and decisions. Such conduct amounts to re-agitation of the same grievances under the RTI framework, which is not permissible under the Act. The RTI mechanism cannot be allowed to be used as a tool to repeatedly reopen settled or administrative matters.
158. 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.
159. 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 mala fide or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, Page 71 of 73 incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
160. 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.
161. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 2450 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.
162. 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 Page 72 of 73 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.
163. 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 (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 73 of 73 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)