Central Information Commission
Mr.S Ramalingam vs Cbdt on 21 June, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000329
Appellant : Shri S Ramalingam
Public Authority : Income Tax Department, Chennai
Date of Hearing : 21.6.2010
Date of Decision : 21.6.2010
FACTS :
The matter is called for hearing today dated 21.6.2010. Appellant not present. The public authority is represented by Shri B.B. Rajender Prasad, Addl CIT, Range-14, Chennai. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 25.8.2009, the appellant had requested for copies of following two orders :-
"(a) Photo copy of ITO Business Ward XIV (1) Ch-34, addressed to the ITO (TDS), Ward 1 (5) and IT (TDS); &
(b) Photocopy of reply received from the ITO (TDS) Ward 1 (5) and IT (TDS)."
2. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information u/s 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 2.9.2009. On appeal, the AA had upheld the decision of CPIO. The operative para of his order dated 24.11.2009 is extracted below :-
"I have duly considered the submission made by the Appellant and the order passed byt eh CPIO viz. ITO, Ward XIV (1), Chennai, in this matter. Information sought by the appellant is only the photo copies of an interdepartmental correspondence and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The appellant's case, therefore, falls under the provisions of Sect 8 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as per provisions of Sec 19 (6) of the RTI Act, 2005."
3. During the hearing, Shri Rajender Prasad would submit that the appellant owes a tax liability of about Rs 4 lakhs and instead of paying up the dues he is taking recourse to diversionary tactics by way of filing RTI applications etc. He strongly objects to the disclosure of information.
DECISION
4. I have perused the letters under reference available in the Department's file. I am of the opinion that disclosure of these letters is not likely to adversely affect the revenues of the State. I am also of the opinion that denial of information under clause (e) of section 8 (1) is not correct inasmuchas the correspondence in question has been exchanged between the two officers of the department in their official capacity and it can not be held that these officers had any fiduciary relationship. Moreover, application of public interest test in the facts and circumstances of the case also does not appear to be appropriate. In the circumstances, the orders of the CPIO and AA are set aside and CPIO is directed to provide copies of the requested letters to the appellant in 03 weeks time.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Address of parties :-
1. Shri B.B. Rajender Prasad Addl CIT, Range-14, Income Tax Department, 121, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034
2. Shri S Ramalingam S/o P Sangilla Pillai, HIG-32, Central Avenue, Korattur, Chennai-600080