Madras High Court
R.Natarajan vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2019
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
WP.No.2875 of 2019
R.Natarajan ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by The Cabinet Secretary,
Government of India,
South Block,
Rashtrapathi Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 004.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Government of India,
128-A, North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001. ... Respondents
WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to
issue a comprehensive speaking order on all the suggestions made in the
representation dated 05.01.2018.
For Petitioner : Mrs.E.Maragatha Sundari
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J) Claiming himself to be a Public Interest Litigation, petitioner has sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue a comprehensive http://www.judis.nic.in 2 speaking order on all the suggestions made in his representation dated 05.01.2018.
2. Supporting the prayer sought for, petitioner has contended that he has sent a representation dated 05.01.2018 to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi, the 2nd respondent herein, and suggested measures that should be taken by the Government to trace and bring back black money.
3. According to the petitioner, suggestions were made based on the recommendations in paragraph No.XXIII of the Report dated 31.01.2011 prepared by Task Force, which was constituted by Mr.S.Gurumuthy, one of the non-official Directors in the Central Board of the Reserve Bank of India, Mr.Ajit Doval, Presently National Security Advisor to the Government of India, Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate and Prof.Vaidyanathan, (Professor Finance, Indian Institute of Management, Bengaluru).
4. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent ought to have processed the representation dated 05.01.2018, as per the procedure laid down in para 1.3.2.4 and 1.3.2.5 at pages 19 and 20 of the 'Reading Material on Office Management for Deputy Secretaries / Directors' (July http://www.judis.nic.in 3 2017 Publication), as published by the Institute of Secretariat Training & Management of the DoPT, Government of India, New Delhi. Petitioner has contended that Respondent No.2, has failed to discharge his duties.
5. Petitioner has further contended that when the status of the representation dated 05.01.2018, was sought for under the Right to Information Act, 2005 though, interim replies dated 05.11.2018 and 11.12.2018 have been given, but no final reply has been given by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), New Delhi. Hence, the instant writ petition for the relief stated supra.
6. Heard Mrs.E.Maragatha Sundari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Representation of the petitioner dated 05.01.2018, is as follows:
From R.Natarajan, E-2, Indus Narmadha, 9, Kalameham Street, East Tambaram, Chennai 600 059.
To
1.Mr.Arun Jaitely, Hon'ble Finance Minister, Government of India, 134, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Secretary, http://www.judis.nic.in Ministry of Finance, 4 Government of India, 128-A, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
Sub : Black money - stashed offshore - methods of detection -
further action - requested.
Ref : 1. Second Report of the Task Force of the BJP submitted on 31.01.2011.
2. Election Manifesto of the BJP for the general election of the year 2014.
I invite kind attention to the references cited and request you to consider with all seriousness the suggestion given by the Task Force of the Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP) in its report dated 31.01.2011 on tracing and bringing back the black money stashed offshore. The details in this regard are given below:
2. The BJP had, at the time of general election in the year 2014, declared in its Manifesto released on 07.04.2014, as under in regard to bringing back the black money stashed offshore:
"BJP is committed to initiate the process of tracking down and bringing back money stashed offshore in foreign banks and offshore accounts. We will set up a Task Force for this purpose and to recommend amendments to existing laws or enact new laws. The process of brining back black money to India what belongs to India, will be put in motion on priority. We will also proactively engage with foreign Governments to facilitate information sharing on black money."
3. But, in fact, the BJP had, already, set up a Task Force in this regard, in the year 2011 itself, when that party was in the Opposition. That Task Force had been constituted with the following persons:
1. Mr.S.Gurumurthy (Auditor and presently Editor, Thuglak),
2. Mr.Ajit Doval (Presently National Security Advisor)
3. Prof.R.Vaidyanathan (Professor Finance, Indian Institute of Management, Bangaluru) and
4. Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani (Senior Advocate)
4. That Task Force, had prepared a comprehensive paper to attack the Congress Party on is inability to bring the black money, hoarded overseas http://www.judis.nic.in by the politicians and others, back to India. The report can be downloaded 5 though the following link:
http://www.bjp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6567:executive- summary-of-indian-black-money-abroad-in-secret-banks-and-tax-havens&catid=68:press-
release&itemid=494 The final suggestions given by that Task Force, at that time, in Para XXIII of their report dated 31.01.2011, were not only very appropriate and correct ones but were practically implementable too. They were:
1. To obtain a declaration from the office bearers of political parties, ministers and M.Ps regarding the existence or otherwise of their wealth abroad;
2. To obtain letters from them and their family members authorising the government to ask from any government or bank in the world the details of money held by them or their wards.
3. To use it to ascertain the extent of black money stashed abroad.
The exact para XXIII of the report of that Task Force is reproduced below:
"XXIII: Moral and ethical response needed from the political class: The Task Force therefore suggests that the political class must set an example. Leaders and office bearers of political parties, ministers and Members of Parliament must declare that they or their families have either no wealth abroad, or if they have they must explain how they had acquired it. In additional they must give letters to the government stating that they authorize the government to ask from any government or bank in the world the details of any money held by them or by their sons and daughters".
5. Mr.Subramanian Swamy, former Union Cabinet Minister of Commerce, Law and Justice, and Chairman of the Action Committee Against Corruption in India, had, in an article titled "Black Money: pinning the shadow down", published in The Hindu on 08.06.2015, written thus:
"Recently, on the suggestion of the eminent lawyer, Ram Jethmalani, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court allowed me to lead arguments on the effective steps to be taken to bring back black money, or undisclosed illegally held funds, estimated at Rs.120 lakh crore, stashed secretly abroad http://www.judis.nic.in by Indians in numbered bank accounts. This amount is about 60 6 times the annual revenue from income tax in the Union Budget."
6. Moreover, Para VIII of the said report dated 31.01.2011 of the Task Force quoted the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19.01.2011 also on this issue. That para read:
"VIII. Not just tax evasion, but "theft" and "plunder"- says the Supreme Court"
But on the 19th of January 2011 [Wednesday] the Supreme Court of India called the shameful phenomenon of Indian funds kept illegally abroad as "theft" and "plunder" and not treat it as merely tax avoidance. It also demanded an "action taken" report on all "faceless" Indians who had moved their ill-gotten money overseas".
And, para VI of the said report narrated the quantum of the black money stashed overseas"
"VI. Indian Black wealth abroad $500 billions, says Global Financing Integrity:
The Global financial Integrity - a Non-profit research organization - working in the area of Tax Havens has estimated for India that the present value of illegal financial flows held abroad is $500 Billions. This means that almost three-quarters of the illicit assets comprising India's underground economy - which has been estimated to account for 50 percent of India's GDP (approximately $640 billion at the end of 2008) - ends up outside of the country. This seems to have settled the issue about the volume of the Indian black wealth abroad."
7. Yet, the Ministry of Finance had gone only about demonetisation to tract the black money within the nation and did not take action on the lines suggested by the present NSA before he became the NSA. It seems that the Hon'ble Finance Minister had forgotten the existence of one such report given, of course, by his political party, on 31.01.2011. It also shows that the enforcement authorities do not keep themselves abreast of the developments in the nation. Otherwise, they could have acted on those suggestions, http://www.judis.nic.in 7 treating them as the suggestions that came from ordinary citizens, irrespective of their affiliations to the political parties.
8. Besides, the aforesaid report of the Task Force of the BJP assumes real significance when the party has become the ruling party. All the more so, when a signatory to that report has become none other than the National Security Advisor.
9. I, therefore, request you to kindly examine the suggestion given in para XXII of the aforesaid Second Report dated 31.01.2011 given by the Task Force of the BJP and take immediate action to obtain the relevant undertakings, not only from the persons categorised therein but also from the persons of the following categories, so that there would be fairness in the approach which would strengthen all the four pillars of democracy including the Executive, the Judiciary and the Fourth Estate:
a. Business leaders (about whom special reference has been made in para IX of the report dated 31.01.2011), b. Senior IAS officers, c. Judges of the Supreme Courts and High Courts, d. Senior Advocates and e. Newspapers and TV network owners.
10. In the context I would like you to kindly recall the fact that as per the report in the Mint on 14.10.2015, 1% of the population of India owned 53% of the national resources. One year later, as per the report in The Hindu on 16.01.2017, the said 1% of the population had increased its hold over the resources and owned 58% of the national wealth. Now, this 1% is attempting at arrogating more than 80% of the national wealth for itself, by dismantling the social security system in the public sector and commercialising the public health sector. Left unchallenged, there will then be only all-round misery in the nation about which that 1% has never cared. It is time the Indian government listened to saner voices like those of Oxfam, which has, in its report titled 'An economy for the benefits everyone, not just the privileged few". Tracing and brining back the black money stashed offshore, by implementing the suggestions given in Para 4 & 9 supra, is one of the few important steps required to be taken by real democratic governments.
11. As more than 3 1/2 years are already over, after the BJP had come to power at the Centre, I request the Hon'ble Finance Minister to make http://www.judis.nic.in 8 use of the opportunity given by the people to implement the suggestions given by the Task Force of his own party,the BJP on 31.01.2011, which are practical and practicable solutions.
12. I also request the Secretary, Ministry of Finance to treat the suggestions narrated in Para 4 & 9 supra, as the suggestions given by individual citizens and take official cognizance of the same, at least after receiving this representation, and take immediate action to examine these suggestions on file and initiate further action to bring back the black money stashed offshore.
13. If these suggestions are found to be impracticable, I request the Secretary, Ministry of Finance to kindly intimate me the reasons for such findings.
Yours faithfully, Encl: Copy of the report dated 31.01.2011 downloaded from the BJP website on 05.01.2018 (R.Natarajan)
8. Representation of the petitioner dated 30.10.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is as follows:
From R.Natarajan, E-2, Indus Narmadha, 9, Kalameham Street, East Tambaram, Chennai 600 059.
To Mr.Raghav Bhat, The Central Public Information Officer, Deputy Director, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Third Floor, Jeevandeep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110 001.
Sub : Black money - stashed offshore - methods of detection -
further action - requested.
http://www.judis.nic.in Ref : My representation dated 05.01.2018 sent to the Hon'ble 9 Minister of Finance and the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
Sir, I invite kind attention to the references cited in which I had reuested the Hon'ble Minister of Finance and the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India to consider with all seriousness the suggestion given by the Task Force of the Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP) in its report dated 31.01.2011 on tracing and bringing back the black money stashed offshore.
2. I had also requested that the Secretary, Ministry of Finance might treat the suggestions narrated in Para 4 & 9 of the said representation, as the suggestions given by individual citizens and take official cognizance of the same, at least after receiving the said representation of mine, and to take immediate action to examine those suggestions on file and initiate further action to bring back the black money stashed offshore.
3. I had also requested the Secretary, Ministry of Finance to kindly intimate me the reasons for his findings, if those suggestions were found to be impracticable.
4. I have not received any reply till date in respect of my representation, in spite of my representation having been delivered at the Ministry of Finance on 13.01.2018.
5. I therefore, request you to kindly supply the following information under Sec.6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005:
Kindly provide me with the copies of the filenotings of the Ministry of Finance during the period from 13.01.2018 to date, containing the action taken by the authorities on my representations sent to the Hon'ble Minister of Finance and the Secretary, Ministry of Finance on 05.01.2018. In other words, I request you to kindly supply the filenotings containing the facts submitted by the Dealing Assistant, and the opinion recorded by the Section Officer and other higher officers and the decision taken by the competent authority with reference to the contents of my representations dated 05.01.2018.
6. I send herewith the Postal Order for Rs.20 (Rs.10 being the fee payable under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the remaining Rs.10 being the cost of photocopying the filenotings) bearing No.04G 111170 dated 25.10.2018, payable to the Accounts Officer, Ministry of Finance.
Yours faithfully, http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Encl: 1. Representation dated 05.01.2018.
2. Tracking page of the Indiapost website.
3. Postal order (R.Natarajan)
9. Interim replies stated to have been given by the CPIO & Deputy Director (BO.II), Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Government of India, New Delhi, dated 05.11.2018 and DCIT (OSD) & CPIO, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, New Delhi, dated 11.12.2018, are extracted hereunder.
F.No.20/54/2018-BO.II Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Financial Services (BO.II Section) *** 'Jeevan Deep' Building, IIIrd Floor, 10, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001 Date: 5th November, 2018 To Shri R.Natarajan E-2, Indus Narmadha 9, Kalameham Street East Tambaram Chennai - 600 059 Subject: RTI request dated 30.10.2018 on the subject of "Black money stashed offshore, methods of detection and further action"
Sir, I would like to refer to your RTI request dated 30.10.2018 regarding your letter dated 05.01.2018 on the subject of "Black money stashed offshore, methods of detection and further action".
2. In this regard, it is stated that your letter dated 05.01.2018 does not seem to have been received in BO.II Section of the Department of Financial Services (DFS). However, as the subject matter seems more connected with the Department of Revenue, your RTI application dated 30.10.2018 is being transferred to Under Secretary & CPIO, Department of Revenue, Room No.66A, North Block, New Delhi, for necessary action.
Yours faithfully, http://www.judis.nic.in Sd/-
11(Raghav Bhatt) CPIO & Deputy Director (BO.II) Tel.No.011-23748715 Copy to:-
Under Secretary & CPIO, Department of Revenue, Room No.66A, North Block, New Delhi, - Along with online RTI request dated 30.10.2018 of Shri R.Natarajan. It is requested to kindly look into the matter for appropriate action at your end; and to send suitable reply to the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. CPIO & Deputy Director (BO.II) RTI Matter F.No.290/29/2013-Dir.(Inv.IV)/2442 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes Room No.505, Fifth Floor, C Block, Civic Centre, New Delhi - 02 Dated : 11.12.2018 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub:- Transfer of RTI application of Sh.R.Natarajan under section 6(3) of the R.T.I. Act, 2005-reg.
Please refer to above subject.
2. Sh.R.Natarajan had filed RTI application dated 30.10.2018 which was received in the branch on 06.12.2018.
3. The information sought in RTI application does not pertain to the Investigation-IV division, CBDT. The work allotted to Investigation-IV division includes primarily dissemination and monitoring of Tax Evasion Petitions and STRs. Hence the questions asked by RTI activist do not pertain to this division.
4. Above said information asked in RTI application regarding Black money is the subject matter assigned to Investigation-I, Branch of CBDT. Accordingly, the RTI application of the applicant is hereby transferred to CPIO/Under Secretary, Investigation-I, CBDT, New Delhi in accordance with the provisions of section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for necessary action as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. In case, the information sought does not pertain to your office, the said application, or part thereof, may please be transferred to the Public Authority to which the subject matter pertains under intimation to the applicant.
(Pankaj Khanna) DCIT (OSD) & CPIO Investigation-IV, CBDT Encl: As above http://www.judis.nic.in 12 To, The Under Secretary/CPIO (Investigation-I), CBDT North Block, New Delhi - 110 001 u/s 6(3) of RTI Act for disposal as per the Act.
Copy to:- Sh.R.Natarajan, Belwaganj, E-2, Indus Narmadha, 9, Kalameham Street, East Tambaram, Chennai-600059 for information and with the request that further correspondence in the matter may be made with the authority mentioned above. However, if he is aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO to transfer his application, he may file an appeal before the following appellate authority within 30 days of receipt of this letter:
Deputy Secretary, (Investigation-IV) Central Board of Direct Taxes, Room No.504, Fifth Floor, C Block, Civic Centre, New Delhi - 02 DCIT (OSD) & CPIO Investigation-IV, CBDT.
10. From the above it could be deduced that the representation of the petitioner dated 05.01.2018, has not been received by CPIO & Deputy Director (BO.II), Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Government of India, New Delhi. Application under RTI Act, dated 30.10.2018, has been transferred to the Under Secretary & CPIO, Department of Revenue. Further reply of DCIT (OSD) & CPIO, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, New Delhi dated 11.12.2018, shows that the RTI application dated 30.10.2018, has been transferred to CPIO/Under Secretary, Investigation-I, CBDT, New Delhi in accordance with the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
11. Reading of the letter dated 11.12.2018 indicates that DCIT (OSD) & CPIO, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of http://www.judis.nic.in 13 Direct Taxes, Government of India, New Delhi, has observed that the information sought for in RTI application regarding black money is the subject matter assigned to Investigation-I, Branch of CBDT and accordingly RTI application has been forwarded to CPIO / Under Secretary, Investigation-I, CBDT, New Delhi.
12. Thereafter, Joint Commissioner of Income tax / CPIO (TPL)-I, has sent a letter dated 09.01.2019, which reads as under.
F.No.370148/1/2019-TPL Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes [TPL Division] 147-B-II, North Block, New Delhi Dated January 09, 2019 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub:- Information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 - transfer regarding.
Please refer to the RTI application dated 30.10.2018 of Shri R.Natarajan made under the RTI Act, 2005 received on transfer from the CPIO & Under Secretary (Inv.-I) CBDT vide letter in F.No.415/113/2018-IT(INV-I) dated 4th January, 2019.
2. As per the FTS record attached (in r/o which information is sought) in the application, it is found that the representation was diarised as receipt no.6961412018/O/o Finance Minister on 19th January, 2018 and the same is with JCIT (Inv.-IV), CBDT from 22nd January 2019.
3. Accordingly, it is likely that the information sought by the applicant, may be available with the Inv.-IV Branch, CBDT. Therefore, the application is being transferred to you under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 with request to send a suitable reply, if the information is available to the applicant directly.
4. In case the information is not available with your office, the same may be transferred to the concerned Public Authority under intimation to the applicant. Enclosures: As above (Niraj Kumar) Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax / CPIO(TPL)-I http://www.judis.nic.in Tele:011 2309 5468 14 To The CPIO & Under Secretary (Inv.-IV) CBDT, Room No.505, 5th Floor, C-Block, Civic Centre, New Delhi - 110 002.
Copy to the :
1) Shri R.Natarajan, Belwagani, E-2, Indus Narmada-9, Kalamehan Street, East Tambaram, Chennai -600 059.
2) CPIO & Under Secretary (Inv.I), CBDT, North Block, New Delhi - 110000.
13. Subject matter of the representation and RTI application appears to be one and the same.
14. Section 7 of the Right to information Act, 2005 deals with the disposal of request and it reads thus.
7. (1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:
Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.
(2) If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have refused the request.
http://www.judis.nic.in 15 (3) Where a decision is taken to provide the information on payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the information, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall send an intimation to the person making the request, giving—
(a) the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as determined by him, together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount in accordance with fee prescribed under sub-section (1), requesting him to deposit that fees, and the period intervening between the despatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days referred to in that sub-section;
(b) information concerning his or her right with respect to review the decision as to the amount of fees charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the appellate authority, time limit, process and any other forms.
(4) Where access to the record or a part thereof is required to be provided under this Act and the person to whom access is to be provided is sensorily disabled, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall provide assistance to enable access to the information, including providing such assistance as may be appropriate for the inspection.
(5) Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed:
Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of http://www.judis.nic.in section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be 16 reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1).
(7) Before taking any decision under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall take into consideration the representation made by a third party under section 11.
(8) Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall communicate to the person making the request,—
(i) the reasons for such rejection;
(ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and
(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.
(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.
15. Section 19 deals with the right of appeal and it is extracted hereunder.
http://www.judis.nic.in
19. (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time 17 specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:
Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.
(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:
Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party.
(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the http://www.judis.nic.in request.18
(6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding.
(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to—
(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including—
(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;
(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;
(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;
(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;
(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;
(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of section 4;
(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;
(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;
(d) reject the application.
(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority.
(10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 16. As per Section 7(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, if the 19 Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have refused the request.
17. In such circumstances, as per Section 19(1) any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause
(a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
18. Section 20 deals with penalties to be imposed on the Information Commission and it is reproduced hereunder.
20. (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any http://www.judis.nic.in complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information 20 Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.
(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the casemay be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.
http://www.judis.nic.in 21
19. Right to Information Act, 2005 provides for a remedy as against refusal to furnish information. As observed in the foregoing paragraph, RTI application regarding black money is the subject matter assigned to Investigation-I, Branch of CBDT and that is why the application has been transferred to CPIO / Under Secretary, Investigation-I, CBDT, New Delhi. If informations are not provided as stated supra, Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 takes care of the situation. Application under RTI regarding black money, which is the subject matter assigned to Investigation-I, Branch of CBDT, is deemed to have been refused.
20. Though Mrs.E.Maragatha Sundari, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on an order of this Court in W.P.No.27440 of 2018 dated 22.10.2018, sought for a direction to the respondents to pass orders on the representation dated 05.01.2018, we are not inclined to issue any such direction, for the reason that in W.P.No.27440 of 2018, submission has been made by respondents therein that representation of the writ petitioner has been forwarded to the Government and therefore, direction to consider the representation was issued. In the case on hand, application under RTI and the representation dated 05.01.2018 are the subject matter under RTI.
21. In the light of the above, we are not inclined to issue any http://www.judis.nic.in 22 direction as prayed for. Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.K., J.) (S.P., J.) 04.02.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes Speaking/Non speaking ars http://www.judis.nic.in 23 To
1. Union of India, Represented by The Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, South Block, Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 004.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 128-A, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
http://www.judis.nic.in 24 S.MANIKUMAR,J.
AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
ars WP.No.2875 of 2019 04.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in