Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 27 September, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.(s) :- CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616026-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616035-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616038-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/628300-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/628303-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/628328-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/632449-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/632915-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/633684-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/633710-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/633713-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/633714-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/634070-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/634072-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/634073-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637658-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637663-BJ
Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy
.... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Income Tax Officer, Hqrs (Admn)
Office of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
Aayakar Bhawan, Ravindra Path
Hazaribagh - 825301
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.09.2019
Date of Decision : 24.09.2019
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616026-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 03.03.2018 CPIO's response 26.03.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil Page 1 of 16 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT-Range 3, Bokaro and Rang 1 & 2, Hazaribagh, the copy of all reports sent to the Higher Authorities by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hazaribagh on his complaints, from the date of joining of Shri S. K. Roy until 28.02.2018.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 26.03.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the investigation reports sent to the Higher Authorities by PCIT, Hazaribagh were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of wrong and unjustifiable response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616035-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 03.03.2018 CPIO's response 26.03.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT-Range 3, Bokaro and Rang 1 & 2, Hazaribagh, the copy of all reports sent to the Higher Authorities by Shri Tapas Kumar Dutta, the then Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hazaribagh on his complaints from the date of joining of Shri Roy until the date of arrest of Shri T. K. Dutta by CBI.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 26.03.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the investigation reports sent to the Higher Authorities by PCIT, Hazaribagh were internal office documents and hence, the information was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of wrong and unjustifiable response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616038-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 03.03.2018 CPIO's response 26.03.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT-Range 3, Bokaro and Range 1 & 2, Hazaribagh, the copy of all reports sent to the Higher Authorities by Page 2 of 16 the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hazaribagh on his complaints from the date of joining of Shri Mondal until the date of his transfer.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 26.03.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the investigation reports sent to the Higher Authorities by PCIT, Hazaribagh were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of wrong and unjustifiable response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 4 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/628300-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 12.07.2018 CPIO's response 08.08.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copy of report of PCIT, Hazaribagh sent to CPGRAM for closure of his complaint (no. as mentioned in the RTI application).
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 08.08.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 5 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/628303-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 12.07.2018 CPIO's response 08.08.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copy of report of PCIT, Hazaribagh, sent to CPGRAM for closure of his complaint (no. as mentioned in the RTI application).
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 08.08.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh, were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.Page 3 of 16
RTI - 6 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/628328-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 12.07.2018 CPIO's response 08.08.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copy of report of PCIT, Hazaribagh, sent to CPGRAM for closure of his complaint (no. as mentioned in the RTI application).
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 08.08.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh, were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 7 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/632449-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 06.09.2018 CPIO's response 28.09.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copy of report of PCIT, Hazaribagh, for closure of his complaint (no. as mentioned in the RTI application).
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 28.09.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh, were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 8 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/632915-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 06.09.2018 CPIO's response 28.09.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil Page 4 of 16 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copy of report of PCIT, Hazaribagh, for closure of his complaint (no. as mentioned in the RTI application).
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 28.09.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh, were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 9 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/633684-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 27.03.2018 CPIO's response 24.04.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copy of report sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh, in respect of his complaint (no. as mentioned in the RTI application) based on which his complaint was closed on 26.02.2018.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.04.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh, were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 10 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/633710-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 28.03.2018 CPIO's response 24.04.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copy of all reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh, in respect of his complaint (no. as mentioned in the RTI application) based on which his complaint was closed on 27.03.2018.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.04.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh, were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public Page 5 of 16 interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 11 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/633713-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 10.04.2018 CPIO's response 24.04.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copy of report of PCIT, Hazaribagh sent in the case vide PMOPG/D/2018/0111634.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.04.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 12 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/633714-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 31.03.2018 CPIO's response 24.04.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of PCIT, Hazaribagh, regarding the copy of all reports sent by the PCIT to the CCIT for the Financial Year 2016-17 along with the designation of the Officer responsible for sending such report to the CCIT for onward transmission to the Commission.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.04.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh to the CCIT were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.Page 6 of 16
RTI - 13 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/634070-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 12.07.2018 CPIO's response 08.08.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding copy of report of PCIT Hazaribagh sent to CPGRAM for closure of his complaint (no. as mentioned in the RTI application).
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 08.08.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh to the CCIT were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 14 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/634072-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 12.07.2018 CPIO's response 08.08.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copy of reports of PCIT, Hazaribagh, sent to CPGRAM for closure of his complaint (no. as mentioned in the RTI application).
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 08.08.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh to the CCIT were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 15 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/634073-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 12.07.2018 CPIO's response 08.08.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil Page 7 of 16 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copy of report of PCIT, Hazaribagh, sent to CPGRAM for closure of his complaint (no. as mentioned in the RTI application).
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 08.08.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh to the CCIT, Ranchi, were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 16 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637658-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 31.03.2018 CPIO's response 24.04.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of PCIT, Hazaribag, regarding the copy of all reports sent by the PCIT to the CCIT for the Financial Year 2016-17 along with the designation of the Officer responsible for sending such report to the CCIT for onward transmission to the Commission.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.04.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh to the CCIT were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 17 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637663-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 10.04.2018 CPIO's response 24.04.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding copy of report of PCIT, Hazaribagh sent in the case vide PMOPG/D/2018/0111634.Page 8 of 16
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.04.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the reports sent by the PCIT, Hazaribagh were internal office documents and hence, the information sought was denied as it did not serve any larger public interest. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kumar, ITO, Hq and Mr. Raj Kishore Shah, Inspector through VC;
The Complainant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that no satisfactory information was provided to him by the CPIO and that the protection under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 was unjustified and not substantiated. It was alleged that with a view to harass him, a consistent view was taken in all such matters wherein through cyclostyled cut and paste orders it was argued that no larger public interest was warranted and hence the information could not be provided. Furthermore, he vehemently argued for imposition of penalty and disciplinary action against the CPIO for his casual and callous approach in dealing with such RTI applications. In addition, it was submitted that through CPGRAM Portal, he had been able to access information in all these matters informing him that action against the alleged officer had not been taken as the complaint was devoid of merit. Nonetheless, he desired a copy of the report to undertake action against the decision makers so that his allegations could be substantiated at an appropriate forum and the guilty could be punished as per extant guidelines. On a query from the Commission regarding the reasons for not filing the First Appeal in all these cases, the Complainant expressed his dissatisfaction over the First Appeal Mechanism within the Public Authority and narrated his personal experience in several other matters where the FAA had merely concurred with the CPIO without application of mind. He argued that in the year 2018, he did not file any First Appeal because of lack of trust and confidence in the institution of FAA. However, with the transfer of officials, he had since started filing the First Appeal. The Complainant raised a legal point with regard to the filing of First Appeal mandatorily as according to him there was no such provision in the RTI Act, 2005 that contained a provision to this effect. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the response of the CPIO and laid emphasis on its internal processes and procedures whereby in Vigilance matters, the action taken reports were not shared with the Complainant. During the hearing, the Respondent referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 as per which the personal information of a third party could not be disclosed.
On a query from the Commission if there was any laid down circular in respect of the replies being submitted to the Complainant in similar such matters, the Respondent feigned ignorance. Nonetheless, it was emphasized that being dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Complainant had the option of remedial action through the institution of FAA which he failed to exercise.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:Page 9 of 16
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Page 10 of 16The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature;
secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
A reference can also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgement of UPSC vs. R.K. Jain, LPA No. 618/2012 dated 06.11.2012 wherein it was held as under:
Page 11 of 16".............the ratio of the dicta aforesaid of the Supreme Court is that the disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activities or public interest and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual."
A reference can also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017wherein it was held as under:
11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim in the matter of Sancha Bahadur Subba vs. State of Sikkim W.P. (C) 31/2017 dated 30.04.2018 had held as under:
"As can be culled out from the averments and submissions, the Petitioner herein suspects that the Respondent No. 5 is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, however mere suspicion without any prima facie material to substantiate it does not justify the disclosure of such information of the Respondent No. 5 as rests with the concerned government authority."
In the context of utilisation of efficacious alternative remedy, the Commission referred to the decision of the Division Bench of the Apex Court in Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NO.11759 OF 2018 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30465 of 2017) dated 03.12.2018 wherein it was held as under:
"15. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on thepart of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies byway of a civil suit or application available to anaggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226of the Constitution being special and extraordinary it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pande vs. Usha Rani, 1992 (4) SCC 61 and Dwarka Prasad Agrawal vs BD Agrawal, (2003) 6 SCC 230)."
Moreover, in the matter of GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sri Ikbal & Ors. in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6989-6990 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.17704-17705 of 2012)dated 22.08.2013, it was held as under:
Page 12 of 16"27. There is one more aspect in the matter which has troubled us. Against the action of the Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the borrower had a remedy of appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17. The remedy provided under Section 17 is an efficacious remedy. The borrower did not avail of that remedy and further remedies from that order and instead directly approached the High Court in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
31. No doubt an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 but by now it is well settled that where a statute provides efficacious and adequate remedy, the High Court will do well in not entertaining a petition under Article 226. On misplaced considerations, statutory procedures cannot be allowed to be circumvented."
A reference can also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011 (2) SCC 782, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
"23. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It is well settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person."
With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on:
01.06.2012) wherein it was held:
" 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. 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 showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with Page 13 of 16 objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission also observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain v. V.P. Pandey, CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4785/ 2017 dated 10.10.2017 adjudicated on the correctness of an order of the Commission dated 17.04.2017 whereby the Respondent was cautioned to exercise due care in future and to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished to the RTI applicants. It was decided that:
"2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the CIC had accepted that there was a delay in providing the necessary information to the petitioner, the CIC had not imposed the penalty as required under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is well settled that imposing of the penalty is a discretionary measure. In Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 a division bench of this Court had considered the question whether the levy of penalty was discretionary and held as under..........
3. In this case it is apparent that the CIC had in its discretion considered that a order cautioning the CPIO would be sufficient. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of discretion."Page 14 of 16
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of R.K. Jain v. CIC and Anr. in W.P.(C) 4152/2017 dated 10.10.2017 had held as under:
"5. The question whether the CIC had the discretion to restrict the penalty or whether penalty as provided under Section 20 of the Act is mandatory, is no longer res integra. The said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 and the relevant extract of the said decision is set out below....
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the CIC. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
The Complainant could not substantiate his claims regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observed that the CPIO had sent a response to the Complainant within the period stipulated under the RTI Act, 2005, hence no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. Moreover, the contention of the Respondent pertaining to the non- utilization of the mechanism under Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 remained unsubstantiated and unanswered by the Complainant. More so in the light of the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court as cited above, it is evident that in the judicial / quasi judicial process the procedures for remedial action should invariably be exhausted unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. Nonetheless, the Commission instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Complaints stand disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 24.09.2019 Page 15 of 16 Copy to:
1- The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building , Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand Page 16 of 16