Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 28 September, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायतसं या / Complaint No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2019/641911
Radha Raman Tripathy ... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO O/o. the Pr. Commissioner of ... ितवादी/Respondent
Income Tax, Central Revenue
Building 5 Main Road, Ranchi,
Jharkhand
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 16-04-2019 FA : Not on record SA : 03-06-2019
Hearing: 08-04-2021,
CPIO : 07-05-2019 FAO : Not on record 01.07.2021 & 24-09-
2021
ORDER
1. The instant matter was earlier listed before this Commission on 08.04.2021 & 01.07.2021 wherein on 08.04.2021, the respondent has sought adjournment. The matter was thus adjourned and listed on 01.07.2021, wherein the Commission observes that:-
"Both the officials, the then CPIO- Ms Chinmaya A. Marathe and the current CPIO, Mr. Neeraj Rastogi are lacking in discharging their responsibility diligently. Thus, the Commission cautions these officials to be more meticulous and vigilant in providing information under the RTI Act and to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on them for contravening the provisions of the RTI act, 2005 within a period of 15 before the Commission on the next date of hearing along with RTI disposal records through audio/video conferencing."
2. In view of the above, the matter was again adjourned and is listed today for show-cause notice hearing.
Page 1 of 4Hearing:
3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Neeraj Rastogi, CPIO/ITO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The complainant submitted that reply has not been provided with regard to the information sought in the RTI Application. The Complainant further contended that the respondent has willfully with malafide intention obstructed the information under the RTI Act. He insisted that penalty should be imposed on the CPIO. He further submitted that a copy of written submissions has also not been provided to him till date.
6. The respondent submitted that a copy of written submission has not been sent to the complainant. He further submitted that "due to near about 400 RTI application received by the respondent in the official capacity as the then CPIO-cum DCIT (HQ), O/o CCIT, Ranchi and many RTI replies to the same complainant had been given on the very same day; in the reply of the CPIO dated 07.05.2019, due to human error, the question has been written as "Copy of report sent to PCCIT, Patna vide no. 2258 dated 07.06.2018."
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the respondent has taken the plea that since they have received multiple RTI Application in large number from the same complainant and many replies has been provided to the same complainant on the same day, therefore confusion arises and human error occurred in exchange of the documents from the office of the Pr. CIT, Ranchi and the office of the JCIT, Exemption Range-2, Ranchi. The Commission observes that even after issuing the show-cause hearing notice to the respondent, the copy of written submission has still not been provided to the complainant. It shows malafide intention of the respondent to obstruct the information and they themselves accepting the human error. That the conduct of the respondent shows that they are biased and deliberately not providing information to the complainant. The Commission observes that the respondent is again and again stating that large number of applications have been filed by the complainant and many replies has been provided on the same day, which is not the appropriate ground to not providing information to the complainant. Hence, the action of the respondent expressing their biasness and willfully obstructing the information by not replying to the RTI Applications particularly filed by the complainant in meticulous manner. That the respondent neither denied the information nor Page 2 of 4 provided the copy of written submission to the complainant showing malafide intention and biasness on the part of the respondent as the complainant has filed multiple RTI Applications regarding corruptions in their Department.
8. Further, while examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr.inCivilAppeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"30. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20.
However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
9. In the above circumstances, levy of penalty is warranted. Therefore, this Commission is constrained to impose a token penalty of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) u/Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the current CPIO, Mr. Neeraj Rastogi responsible for being biased with the complainant and obstructing the information in responding to the RTI applicant. The amount of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) shall be deducted by the Public Authority from his salary. A demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi 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 31.10.2021. The present CPIO should ensure service a copy of this order to the then CPIO.Page 3 of 4
10. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु )
दनांक / Date : 24-09-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस"यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
O/O. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax,
Ranchi, DCIT(Hqrs.) (Admin.) & Nodal CPIO,
RTI Cell, Central Revenue Building,
5, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001
2. Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy
Page 4 of 4