Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 29 April, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629184, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629185,
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629186, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629187
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629194, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629202
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629370, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644905
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644904, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644903
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644900, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644897
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632448, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632446
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632637 and CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632636
(Sixteen cases)
RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY ....शिकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. PIO,
O/o Commissioner of Income Tax,
Srijee Sadan, Thana Chowk,
Ramgarh, Jharkhand - 829122
2. PIO,
Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1),
Sector 1, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro,
Jharkhand - 827001 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 24-04-2024
Date of Decision : 29-04-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Page 1 of 20
Relevant facts emerging from complaints:
RTI application filed on : 28-01-2020, 29-04-2022, 02-05-2022
& 13-05-2022
CPIO replied on : 12-07-2022, 03-04-2024 & 22-04-2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's : Not on record
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14-06-2023, 15-09-2023, 04-07-2023
& 05-07-2023
The above-mentioned complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant
is common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
heard together and disposed of through a common order to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings.
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629184
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28-01-2020 seeking the following information:
"Mr. BK Singh, DCIT, Bokaro illegally issued five number of notices u/s 148 of the IT Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13 to Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH) who died on 02-06-2009 out due to severe harassment, torture, and extortion by then ACIT Mr. Sonbhadra, Then Addl. CIT, Mr. Munda and then CIT, Vedanand Jha. Out of five notices, four of them are in my possession.
Mr. Singh was duly informed about the demise of PAHH, although he is already aware of this fact. But the left-out motive of extortion from PAHH by his predecessor and his seniors forced Mr. BK Singh to take illegal steps by issuing notices u/s 148 to the same deceased person that took five in numbers. Even after being in the knowledge of Mr. BK Singh, he completed assessment for the above assessment year instead of dropping the proceedings is a great matter of concern.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2018-19.
2. Name of the deceased assesses as at sl.1 above."Page 2 of 20
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 03-04-2024 stating as under:
"1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2018-19:- NIL
2. Ν.Α."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629185 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28-01-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2017-18.
2. Name of the deceased assesses as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 03-04-2024 stating as under:
"1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2017-18.:- NIL
2. Ν.Α."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629186 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28-01-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2016-17.
2. Name of the deceased assesses as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 03-04-2024 stating as under:
"1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2016-17.:- NIL
2. Ν.Α."Page 3 of 20
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629187 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28-01-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2015-16.
2. Name of the deceased assesses as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 03-04-2024 stating as under:
"1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2015-16.:- NIL
2. Ν.Α."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629194 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28-01-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2014-15.
2. Name of the deceased assesses as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 03-04-2024 stating as under:
"1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2014-15:- NIL
2. Ν.Α."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629202 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28-01-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2013-14.Page 4 of 20
2. Name of the deceased assesses as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 03-04-2024 stating as under:
"1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2013-14.:- NIL
2. Ν.Α."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629370 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28-01-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2013-14.
2. Name of the deceased assesses as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Complainant on 03-04-2024 stating as under:
"1. Number of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to deceased assesses for the assessment year 2013-14.:- NIL
2. Ν.Α."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644905 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-04-2022 seeking the following information:
"Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT issued more than five notices u/s 148 of the IT Act absurdly and ridiculously to Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH) for one Assessment Year 2012-13 on different addresses. This kind of action was taken by Mr. BK Singh without application of mind. Point to be noted is that PAHH died on 02/06/2009 and this fact was in the knowledge of Mr. BK Singh. But in frustration of not getting bribe by his predecessor Mr. VR Sinbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, Mr. BK Singh continued his project and tried to take revenge from a dead person. Unfortunately, the PCCIT is silent on this issue and has failed to act against this corrupt Officer.Page 5 of 20
"1. Number of cases in which multiple notices u/s 148 of the IT Act have been issued by Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro on multiple addresses to deceased persons for the AY 2011-12."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 12-07-2022 stating as under:
"1.This office has been created on September 2020 as per the direction of the CBDT by merging all the erstwhile office of Range-3, Bokaro, and hence, information regarding no. of cases in which multiple notices u/s 148 of the IT Act have been issued by Mr. BK Singh, the then DCIT, Bokaro, on multiple addresses to the deceased persons for the AY 2011-12, is not readily available."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644904 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-04-2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of cases in which multiple notices u/s 148 of the IT Act have been issued by Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro on multiple addresses to deceased persons for the AY 2016-17."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 12-07-2022 stating as under:
"This office has been created on September 2020 as per the direction of the CBDT by merging all the erstwhile office of Range-3, Bokaro, and hence, information regarding no of cases in which multiple notices u/s 148 of the IT Act have been issued by Mr. BK Singh, the then DCIT, Bokaro, on multiple addresses to the deceased persons for the AY 2016-17, is not readily available."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644903 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-04-2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of cases in which multiple notices u/s 148 of the IT Act have been issued by Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro on multiple addresses to deceased persons for the AY 2012-13."Page 6 of 20
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 12-07-2022 stating as under:
"This office has been created on September 2020 as per the direction of the CBDT by merging all the erstwhile office of Range-3, Bokaro, and hence, information regarding no of cases in which multiple notices u/s 148 of the IT Act have been issued by Mr. BK Singh, the then DCIT, Bokaro, on multiple addresses to the deceased persons for the AY 2012-13, is not readily available."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644900 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-04-2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of cases in which multiple notices u/s 148 of the IT Act have been issued by Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro on multiple addresses to deceased persons for the AY 2013-14."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 12-07-2022 stating as under:
"This office has been created on September 2020 as per the direction of the CBDT by merging all the erstwhile office of Range-3, Bokaro, and hence, information regarding no of cases in which multiple notices u/s 148 of the IT Act have been issued by Mr. BK Singh, the then DCIT, Bokaro, on multiple addresses to the deceased persons for the AY 2013-14, is not readily available."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/644897 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-04-2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of cases in which multiple notices u/s 148 of the IT Act have been issued by Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro on multiple addresses to deceased persons for the AY 2015-16."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 12-07-2022 stating as under:
"This office has been created on September 2020 as per the direction of the CBDT by merging all the erstwhile office of Range-3, Bokaro, and Page 7 of 20 hence, information regarding no of cases in which multiple notices u/s 148 of the IT Act have been issued by Mr. BK Singh, the then DCIT, Bokaro, on multiple addresses to the deceased persons for the AY 2015-16, is not readily available."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632448 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro issued Five notices u/s 148 of the IT Act on different addresses of Param ji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PANAARPH0661H) for the AY 2012-13, whereas PAHH died on 02-
06-2009. This fact was well known to Mr. BK Singh, but in arrogance and to support his predecessor Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT he did this absurd and ridiculous action against a deceased person, that took Five Notices for one Assessment Year. Since Mr. Singh was the Assessing Officer of PAHH, it was knowledgeable that PAHH is no more. Consequently Mr. Singh completed assessment proceedings and determined illegal, absurd, and ridiculous amount of tax of Rs. 125,299/- on 05/12/2019. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated against a dead person. Kindly provide me with the following information:
1. Date of recovery of Tax demand of Rs.125,299/- from PAHH illegally determined by Mr. BK Singh without application of mind."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 22-04-2024 stating as under:
"The O/o of the ACIT/DCIT. Circle-3, Bokaro is merged in September 2020 with ITO ward 3(1), Bokaro and the portal of RTI of ACIT/DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro is not in use as this office has no existence from Sep 2020. Hence reply has not been given."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632446 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro issued Five notices u/s 148 of the IT Act on different addresses of Param ji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN *********1H) for the AY 2012-13, whereas PAHH died on 02-06-2009. This fact was well Page 8 of 20 known to Mr. BK Singh, but in arrogance and to support his predecessor Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT he did this absurd and ridiculous action against a deceased person, that took Five Notices for one Assessment Year. Since Mr. Singh was the Assessing Officer of PAHH, it was knowledgeable that PAHH is no more. Consequently Mr. Singh completed assessment proceedings and determined illegal, absurd, and ridiculous amount of tax of Rs. 125,299/- on 05/12/2019. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated against a dead person.
1. Date of disposal of Penalty proceedings initiated 0n 05/12/2019 u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act against PAHH.
2. Amount of Penalty imposed as at Sl.1 Above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 22-04-2024 stating as under:
"The O/o of the ACIT/DCIT. Circle-3, Bokaro is merged in September 2020 with ITO ward 3(1), Bokaro and the portal of RTI of ACIT/DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro is not in use as this office has no existence from Sep 2020. Hence reply has not been given."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632637 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to the attached order of the CIC in respect of Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro dated 21-01-2022 vide No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/668788 and CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/668815. The presenting CPIO on the date of hearing was Mr. R. K. Garg, ITO who was directed by the CIC to ensure service of this order to Mr. BK Singh, then CPIO to show cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act as well as to start disciplinary action against him.
1. Date of submission of reply by Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro in compliance with decision of the CIC as above.
2. Copy of reply to show cause as at sl.1 above."Page 9 of 20
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 22-04-2024 stating as under:
"The O/o of the ACIT/DCIT. Circle-3, Bokaro is merged in September 2020 with ITO ward 3(1), Bokaro and the portal of RTI of ACIT/DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro is not in use as this office has no existence from Sep 2020. Hence reply has not been given."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/632636 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to the attached order of the CIC in respect of Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro dated 21-01-2022 vide No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/668788 and CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/668815. The presenting CPIO on the date of hearing was Mr. R. K. Garg, ITO who was directed by the CIC to ensure service of this order to Mr. BK Singh, then CPIO to show cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act as well as to start disciplinary action against him.
1. Date of service of the order of the CIC upon Mr. BK Singh by Mr. RK Garg, ITO, as directed by CIC."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 22-04-2024 stating as under:
"The O/o of the ACIT/DCIT. Circle-3, Bokaro is merged in September 2020 with ITO ward 3(1), Bokaro and the portal of RTI of ACIT/DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro is not in use as this office has no existence from Sep 2020. Hence reply has not been given."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri Asim Toppo, IT Officer/CPIO, Ramgarh and Shri Deepak Kumar, CPIO, Bokaro, appeared through video conference Page 10 of 20 The respondents while defending their case inter alia submitted that the complainant has filed complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 in respect of non- receipt of any reply from the erstwhile CPIO of Bokaro and erstwhile CPIO of Income Tax Officer, ward- 2(5) Ramgarh & CPIO-Income Tax Officer, ward 2(3) Ramgarh. The CPIO-ITO ward 2(5), Ramgarh & CPIO-Income Tax Officer, ward- 2(3) Ramgarh has been merged and form single CPIO ward 2(3), Ramgarh from 2020.
In view of the re-structuring of the respondent organization in 2020 and inaccessibility of the online RTI portal, the aforesaid RTI applications filed by the Complainant through online portal could not be located. However, on receipt of notice from the Commission, efforts were made to locate the data so as to give an updated point-wise reply which has been provided to the Complainant vide letters dated 12-07-2022, 03-04-2024 and 22-04-2024 intimating the factual position as per the records available with them. They stated that some of the replies were given within the stipulated time. They further prayed the Commission that delay caused in giving reply being unintentional be condoned in the interest of justice.
They informed that the Complainant had filed numerous RTI applications which creates undue pressure to CPIOs, and lot of time was being wasted for preparing the reply of the RTI applications which has no public interest and repeated application with minor changes. They stated that no first appeals were filed by the complainant against any case. Further, the respondent had filed written submission dated 18.04.2024 and relevant para is being reproduced as under:
"It is to bring to the kind notice of Hon'ble Sir that the applicant is a regular RTI filer. Each and every office of Jharkhand region receives RTI from the applicant on a regular basis. It is also submitted that the applicant files RTI with central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, or with the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Bihar & Jharkhand, Patna, if he seeks information in respect of any particular Income tax office of Jharkhand region. All the Offices of Income tax situated in Bihar and Jharkhand work under the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Bihar & Jharkhand, Patna. As such, the RTI Application filed by him is circulated among all the offices Page 11 of 20 of Jharkhand region and every CPIO has to pass an order in this respect. The majority of reply remains, "No such case pertains to this office/there is no such case in respect of this" since does not relate with that office.
It is humbly reiterated that we have been assigned with several time barring works, which involves huge revenue. As such, every Income tax authority remains busy in discharging these income tax proceedings involving huge revenue, which is a work of national importance. In this regard, kind attention of respected sir is drawn towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (SLP No. 7526/2009, Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has exhaustively explained different sections, their meaning and scope of RTI Act. In the para 37, Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated:
"The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should be converted a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to the applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under RTI Act and the pressure of the authority under RTI Act should not lead to employee of public authorities prioritizing 'furnishing information', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
It is also to bring to the kind information of Hon'ble sir that the said RTI has already been replied by our many offices. The applicant has been provided with the information he had sought vide the impugned RTI application from ITO, Ward-2(3), Ramgarh. It is humbly submitted that filing of numerous RTI applications seeking reply of the same nature of information by the complainant has been done to pressurize the public authority into acceding to his request for similar nature of information. The Hon'ble CIC in his order dated 28.12.2022 has also observed the attitude of the complainant. However, every CPIO has replied his all RTI applications after due application of mind and within the meaning of Section of RTI Act without any mala-fide intention."Page 12 of 20
Decision The Commission, after adverting the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the respondents have provided point-wise reply to the complainant vide letters dated 12-07- 2022, 03-04-2024 and 22-04-2024. The respondent submitted that replies were given to the complainant as per the records available with them. The Commission further observes that there is a substantial delay in providing replies to the Complainant on some of the above-mentioned RTI applications. In this regard, the Respondent, during the hearing, informed that due to some technical reasons owing to merging of two concerned Wards and inaccessibility of the online RTI portal, the above-mentioned RTI applications were not attended within the mandated period. The Respondent apologized for the same and assured that such lapses would not recur in future.
The Commission further observes that the Complainant has not filed any first appeal or Second Appeal in the above-mentioned cases as also in all cases adjudicated by this bench so far, and reasons for the same could not be ascertained as he was not present before the Commission despite notice. In a complaint case, the Commission cannot give any relief for information under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only restricted role lies is to adjudicate whether the information has been malafidely denied by the CPIO or undue hindrance has been caused by the Respondent. It is noteworthy that the Complainant was not present before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondents and further agitate the matter.
The Commission is not inclined to accept the prayer of the complainant to impose penalty and for recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned CPIOs in the absence of any mala fide on part of the respondent. The conduct of the Complainant shows his intention to pressurize the CPIO with the fear of penal action than actual delivery of information to him.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1600 cases of the same Complainant against same/different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Complaints listed for today's hearing have been heard together along with other 96 matters Page 13 of 20 of the Complainant simultaneously and the Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the time span of information sought in each of his RTI Applications apparently to pressurize the public authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. It appears that the complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
Here, the Commission would also like to recall its earlier observations made in a bunch matter of this complainant is case File Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2021/630320 and others decided on 21.02.2024; and CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/659908 and others decided on 23.02.2024 wherein it was held as under -
"....the Commission finds it pertinent to mention that today 100 Complaints of the Complainant are being heard so that he does not have to appear frequently in the hearing on different dates and his time and resource are saved besides saving him from inconvenience. On one hand, the Commission is devoting very substantive time on his cases, but the Complainant by choosing to be absent in the hearing, has adopted a very casual, in fact, irresponsible act.
The scope of adjudication in the above-mentioned complaints filed under Section 18 of RTI Act, 2005 is limited to ascertaining whether the information has been denied with any mala fide intention or without any reasonable cause by the Respondent. The Commission observes that firstly, the replies given by the Respondent on above- mentioned RTI applications are within the stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Secondly, the information available on record has already been provided to the Complainant.
The Complainant in his above-mentioned complaints has not explained the deficiency in the information provided. The Commission further observed that merely stating that the reply given is not satisfactory is not sufficient grounds to take action against the Respondent under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
Regarding imposition of penalty to the CPIO/PIO under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court Page 14 of 20 in Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs. WP(C) 3114/2007 vide order dated 03.12.2007 held that:
"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 4 information officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of the 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....."
Emphasis supplied 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." In view of the above, the Commission finds that there is no mala fide on part of the respondent while replying to the RTI application. That being so, and in the absence of any merit in the complaint, the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1200 cases of the same Complainant against same/another Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Complaints listed for today's hearing have been heard together along with other 74 matters of the Complainant simultaneously and the Page 15 of 20 Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the time span of information sought in each of his RTI Applications apparently to pressurize the public authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
It appears that the Complainant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter- productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Page 16 of 20 Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious and repetitive litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....."
Emphasis supplied The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar observations:
"....... This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...37. ............................ Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged Page 17 of 20 down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties..."
Emphasis supplied xxx In view of this, the Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated. Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated. The Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter. "
The Complainant has not been judicious in the use of RTI Act and has been using it as a tool to harass the Public Authority. The Complainant is therefore cautioned to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner." Notwithstanding the above, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the Complainant as he is not abiding by the repeated advice of the Commission and filing repetitive similar RTI Applications without establishing any public purpose, which is against the spirit of RTI Act and Page 18 of 20 clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
In view of the above-said observations and the replies having been given, the Commission finds no mala fide on part of the CPIOs in replying to the RTI applications. Further, the Commission again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future.
With these observations, the instant Complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयक् ु ि) Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाणणत सत्यापित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 19 of 20 Page 20 of 20 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)