Central Information Commission
Raj Kumar Agarwal vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 15 September, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITK/A/2019/102841
Raj Kumar Agarwal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, O/o the Principal Chief ... ितवादी /Respondent
Commissioner of Income Tax,
W.B. & Sikkim, DCIT Hqrs.
(Admin. & Vig.), Aayakar
Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee
Square, Kolkata, West Bengal-
700069.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 23.10.2018 FA : 23.11.2018 SA : 18.01.2019
CPIO : Not on record FAO : 24.12.2018 Hearing : 08.09.2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B. & Sikkim, DCIT Hqrs. (Admin. & Vig.), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, West Bengal. The appellant seeking information on four points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Details of Inspector posted in Circle-3(1), Kolkata;
(ii) Name of inspectors;
(iii) Date of posting in current jurisdiction, etc. Page 1 of 4
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 23.11.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 24.12.2018 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Debasis Vishwas, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 28.08.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 23.10.2018.
6. The respondent, during the hearing, agreed that no reply/information has been provided to the appellant on his RTI application dated 23.10.2018 initially. The respondent submitted that on 28.08.2020, point-wise reply/information has been uploaded on the Commission's portal. On query from the Commission, the respondent submitted that Shri Anand Kumar and Shri Tarun Kumar Kanaujiya was the then PIOs.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that no reply/information has been provided to the appellant on his RTI application dated 23.10.2018 till date. The respondent, during the hearing, has also agreed that no information was provided to the appellant within stipulated period of time. The RTI application of the appellant was kept pending for almost two years and no action has been taken on the same. This is the grave violations of the provisions of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission further observed that the then PIO Shri Tarun Kumar Kanaujiya has uploaded his written submissions dated 28.08.2020 on the Commission's portal but the copy of his reply was not given to the appellant. It seems that the then PIO wilfully and negligently not provided the information to the appellant on his RTI application. It further shows the callous behaviour on the part of the then CPIO in dealing with the RTI application. In view of this, the Page 2 of 4 Commission is constraint to impose a penalty of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) on Shri Tarun Kumar Kanaujiya, then PIO who has failed to provide complete information to the appellant on his RTI application dated 23.10.2018 within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The amount of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) shall be deducted by the Public Authority from his salary by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi and the demand draft should be forwarded to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email:
[email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067. This demand draft of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) should reach the Commission by 13.10.2020. The FAA is directed to ensure the compliance of this order and send report to the Commission.
9. The Commission further directs Shri Anand Kumar, then PIO to show-cause in writing the reasons that as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act and has not given any reply to the appellant on his RTI application within stipulated period of time, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent is directed to ensure service a copy of this order to Shri Anand Kumar and Shri Tarun Kumar Kanaujiya.
10. The respondent is further directed to send a copy of their reply dated 28.08.2020, within 7 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कुमार गु ता)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ता
सूचना आयु त)
Information Commissioner (स त
दनांक / Date 08.09.2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स$ािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
O/o the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B. & Sikkim, DCIT Hqrs. (Admin. & Vig.) & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, West Bengal-700069.
2. Raj Kumar Agarwal, Page 4 of 4