Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 21 March, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos.: Total 39 cases, as per the list -
S. N. Complaint No. S. N. Complaint No.
1. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618412 21. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618418
2. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618422 22. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618420
3. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618428 23. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620435
4. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618430 24. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620437
5. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618431 25. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620438
6. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618447 26. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620440
7. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618448 27. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620441
8. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618450 28. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620442
9. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618451 29. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620444
10. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618454 30. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620087
11. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618456 31. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620458
12. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618392 32. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620459
13. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618405 33. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620461
14. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618406 34. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620463
15. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618408 35. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620464
16. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618409 36. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620465
17. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618410 37. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620466
18. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618414 38. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620467
19. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618415 39. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620686
20. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618417
RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY ....शिकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Pr. Commissioner
of Income-Tax, Bela Kothi,
Ramkrishna Ashram Road,
Muzaffarpur, Bihar - 842005 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Page 1 of 26
Date of Hearing : 14-03-2024
Date of Decision : 20-03-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for the sake of
brevity and disposal as these are based on similar RTI Applications of the
same Appellant against same Public Authority.
Relevant facts emerging from complaints:
S. No. Complaint RTI CPIO's Reply First FAA's Complaint
No. Application Appeal order dated
1. 618412 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
2. 618422 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
3. 618428 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
4. 618430 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
5. 618431 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
6. 618447 02-12-2019 02-01-2020 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
7. 618448 02-12-2019 02-01-2020 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
8. 618450 02-12-2019 02-01-2020 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
9. 618451 02-12-2019 02-01-2020 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
10. 618454 02-12-2019 02-01-2020 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
11. 618456 02-12-2019 02-01-2020 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
12. 618392 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
13. 618405 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
14. 618406 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
15. 618408 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
16. 618409 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 20-04-2023
17. 618410 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 20-04-2023
18. 618414 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
19. 618415 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
20. 618417 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 20-04-2023
21. 618418 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
22. 618420 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 20-04-2023
23. 620435 07-11-2019 11-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 20-04-2023
24. 620437 02-12-2019 02-01-2020 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
25. 620438 02-12-2019 02-01-2020 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
Page 2 of 26
26. 620440 02-12-2019 02-01-2020 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
27. 620441 02-12-2019 02-01-2020 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
28. 620442 02-12-2019 02-01-2020 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
29. 620444 02-12-2019 23-12-2019 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
30. 620087 02-12-2019 02-01-2020 N.A. N.A. 11-04-2023
31. 620458 10-01-2020 12-02-2020 N.A. N.A. 20-04-2023
32. 620459 10-01-2020 12-02-2020 N.A. N.A. 20-04-2023
33. 620461 10-01-2020 12-02-2020 N.A. N.A. 20-04-2023
34. 620463 10-01-2020 12-02-2020 N.A. N.A. 20-04-2023
35. 620464 10-01-2020 12-02-2020 N.A. N.A. 20-04-2023
36. 620465 10-01-2020 12-02-2020 N.A. N.A. 20-04-2023
37. 620466 10-01-2020 12-02-2020 N.A. N.A. 20-04-2023
38. 620467 10-01-2020 12-02-2020 N.A. N.A. 20-04-2023
39. 620686 12-03-2020 25-04-2020 N.A. N.A. 25-04-2023
1. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618412
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of your Range.
1. Total number of cases in which notice u/s 139(9) have been issued during the month of October,2019.
2. Total number of returns declared defective out of Sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under:
"This pertains to CPC."
2. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618422 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
Page 3 of 26
"1. Number of cases in which Penalty u/s 271B have been imposed during the month of October,2019.
2. Amount of Penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under:
"There is no such case in which penalty imposed during the month of October 2019."
3. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618428 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Number cases in which Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) have been imposed during the month of October,2019.
2. Amount of Penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 09-12-2019 stating as under:
"There is no such case in which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed during the month of October 2019."
4. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618430 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of cases in which penalty u/s 271(1)(b) have been imposed During the month of October,2019.
2. Total amount of penalty as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under: Page 4 of 26
"There is no such case in which penalty u/s 271(1)(b) imposed during the month of October 2019."
5. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618431 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of Income Tax Returns filed manually during the month of October,2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under:
"No manual return has been filed during the month of October,2019."
6. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618447 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-12-2019 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of your Range.
1. Number of Scrutiny cases pending as on 01-11-2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 02-01-2020 stating as under:
"Number of Scrutiny cases pending as on 01-11-2019 is 115."
7. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618448 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-12-2019 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of your Range.Page 5 of 26
1. Telephone Directory of all Officers and Staff working in JCIT as on 01- 11-2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 02-01-2020 stating as under:
"As per records of this office - NIL."
8. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618450 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-12-2019 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of your Range.
1. Total Arrear Tax demand outstanding as on 01-11-2019.
2. Total Tax collected out of Sl.1 above during the month of November,2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 02-01-2020 stating as under:
"1. Total Arrear Tax demand outstanding as on 01-11-2019. Is 630.13 lakh.
2. Total Tax collected out of Sl.1 above during the month of November,2019 is 1.63 lakh."
9. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618451 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-12-2019 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of your Range.Page 6 of 26
1. Total Application for rectification u/s 154 pending as on 01-08-2019.
2. Total number of applications disposed off out of sl.1 above during the month of November,2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 02-01-2020 stating as under:
"NIL."
10.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618454 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-12-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Total number of cases in which notice u/s 148 have been issued during the month of november,2019.
2. Total number of returns filed in response to notice u/s 148 as above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 02-01-2020 stating as under:
"NIL."
11.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618456 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-12-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Total number of cases in which notice u/s 131 have been issued during the month of November,2019.
2. Total number of Compliances made from Sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 02-01-2020 stating as under:
"1. NIL.Page 7 of 26
2. NIL."
12.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618392 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of Scrutiny cases pending as on 01-10-2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under:
"Number of Scrutiny cases pending as on 01-10-2019 is 103."
13.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618405 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Telephone Directory of all Officers and Staff working in JCIT as on 01- 10-2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under:
"There is no such data maintained in this office."
14.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618406 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Total Arrear Tax demand outstanding as on 01-10-2019.
2. Total Tax collected out of Sl.1 above during the month of October,2019."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under:
Page 8 of 26
"1. As per CAP Rs. 5814 in lakhs.
2. As per CAP Rs. 337.64 in lakhs."
15.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618408 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Total Application for rectification u/s 154 pending as on 01-08-2019.
2. Total number of applications disposed off out of sl.1 above during the month of October,2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under:
"As per record, no rectification is pending as on date."
16.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618409 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Total number of cases in which notice u/s 148 have been issued during the month of October,2019.
2. Total number of returns filed in response to notice u/s 148 as above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under:
"There are no such cases in which notice u/s 148 have been issued during the month of October,2019."
17.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618410 Page 9 of 26 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Total number of cases in which notice u/s 131 have been issued during the month of October,2019.
2. Total number of Compliances made from Sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under:
"No notices notice u/s 131 have been issued during the month of October,2019.
18.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618414 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of your Range.
1. Number of Scrutiny cases in which First Page of the Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Patna during the month of October,2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under:
"No such cases."
19.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618415 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:Page 10 of 26
"1. Total number of cases in which interest u/s 220 of the Income Tax Act have been charged during the month of October,2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under:
"No interest u/s 220 of the Income Tax Act was charged during the month of October,2019."
20.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618417 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Total number of cases in which notices u/s 281B of the Income Tax Act have been issued during the month of October,2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under:
"There are no such cases in which notice u/s 281B of the Income Tax Act have been issued during the month of October,2019."
21.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618418 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of your Range.
1. Number of cases in which surveys were conducted during the month of October,2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under: Page 11 of 26
"No survey was conducted during the month of October,2019."
22.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620087
23.CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620444 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-12-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of Income Tax Returns filed manually during the month of November,2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 02-01-2020, 23-12-2019 and 02-01-2020 stating as under:
"NIL."
24. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620435 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-12-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Total number of cases in which interest u/s 220 of the Income Tax Act have been charged during the month of November,2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 02-01-2020 stating as under:
"NIL."
25. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/618420 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07-11-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Total Number of cases in which Penalty u/s 271A have been imposed.
2. Total amount of penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."Page 12 of 26
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11-12-2019 stating as under:
"No such cases."
26. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620437
27. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620438 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-12-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Total Number of cases in which Penalty u/s 271A have been imposed.
2. Total amount of penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 02-01-2020 stating as under:
"NIL."
28. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620440 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-12-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Number cases in which Penalty u/s 271B have been imposed during the month of November,2019.
2. Amount of Penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 02-01-2020 stating as under:
"NIL."
29. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620441 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-12-2019 seeking the following information:
Page 13 of 26
"1. Number of cases in which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) have been imposed During the month of November,2019.
2. Total amount of penalty as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 02-01-2020 stating as under:
"NIL."
30. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620442 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02-12-2019 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of cases in which penalty u/s 271(1)(b) have been imposed During the month of November,2019.
2. Total amount of penalty as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 02-01-2020 stating as under:
"NIL."
31. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620458 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10-01-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of Scrutiny cases pending as on 01-12-2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 12-02-2020 stating as under:
"Number of Scrutiny cases pending as on 01-12-2019 is 53."
32. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620459 Page 14 of 26 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-10-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Total Arrear Tax demand outstanding as on 01-11-2019.
2. Total Tax collected out of Sl.1 above during the month of December,2019."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 12-02-2020 stating as under:
"1. Total Arrear Tax demand outstanding as on 01-11-2019 is 07.00 lakh.
2. Total Tax collected out of Sl.1 above during the month of December,2019 is 05.00 lakh."
33. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620461 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10-01-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Total Application for rectification u/s 154 pending as on 01-12-2019.
2. Total number of applications disposed off out of sl.1 above during the month of December,2019."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 12-02-2020 stating as under:
"1. 06.
2. 02. Range data is not available."
34. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620463 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10-01-2020 seeking the following information:
Page 15 of 26
"1. Total number of cases in which notice u/s 131 have been issued during the month of December,2019.
2. Total number of Compliances made from Sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 12-02-2020 stating as under:
"No data available to this ward in respect of Range."
35. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620464 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10-01-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Total Number of cases in which Penalty u/s 271A have been imposed December 2019.
2. Total amount of penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 12-02-2020 stating as under:
"No penalty imposed in respect of Penalty u/s 271A in respect of ITO, Ward 2(5), Sitamarhi, Range data is not available."
36. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620465 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10-01-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Total Number of cases in which Penalty u/s 271B have been imposed December 2019.
2. Total amount of penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 12-02-2020 stating as under: Page 16 of 26
"No penalty u/s 271 B imposed during the month of December 2019 in respect of ITO, Ward 2(5), Sitamarhi."
37. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620466 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10-01-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Total Number of cases in which Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) have been imposed December 2019.
2. Total amount of penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 12-02-2020 stating as under:
"In 02 cases penalty u/s 271(1)(c) have been imposed in December 2019 and the amount of penalty involved is Rs. 185,453/- in respect of ITO, Ward 2 (5), Sitamarhi."
38. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620467 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10-01-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Total Number of cases in which Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) have been imposed December 2019.
2. Total amount of penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 12-02-2020 stating as under:
"In 02 cases penalty u/s 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(D) have been imposed in December 2019 and the amount of penalty involved is Rs. 20,000/- in respect of ITO, Ward 2 (5), Sitamarhi."Page 17 of 26
39. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620686 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12-03-2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Number of cases in which penalty u/s 271(1)(b) have been imposed During the month of January,2020.
2. Total amount of penalty as at sl.1 above."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaints on the ground of no response from the CPIO. He prayed the Commission for penal action against the CPIOs. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Mangalmoy Halder, ACIT, Circle- I, Muzaffarpur along with Shri Satish Kumar Roy, ITO ward 1(1) and CPIO, Muzaffarpur present through video-conference.
Written submissions of the Complainant and Respondent are taken on record.
Shri Mangalmoy Halder, ACIT, Circle- I, Muzaffarpur while relying on his written submission dated 12-03-2024 submitted that the CPIO of the present cases are ITO Ward-2(1), Muzaffarpur which has now been merged with ITO Ward 1(1), Muzaffarpur. However, upon receipt of the hearing notice, a revised reply has been provided to the Complainant vide letters dated 12-03-2024.
Shri Satish Kumar Roy apprised the Commission that his erstwhile office of the ITO, Ward -2(1), Muzaffarpur was merged in the O/o. ITO, Ward 1(1), Muzaffarpur w.e.f. 20.09.2020. However, upon receipt of hearing notice, he located the entire records and observed that replies through online RTI portal Page 18 of 26 were already furnished to the Complainant on 23-12-2019, 02-01-2020, 11-12- 2019, and 12-02-2020.
Decision The Commission, after adverting to facts and circumstance of the case, perusal of records and after hearing submissions of the Respondent observes that the main ground raised by the Complainant in all these Complaints was non- receipt reply from the Respondent. In response to which, the Respondent clarified that reply against each RTI Application has already been provided to the Complainant at the first instance through online RTI portal on 23-12-2019, 02-01-2020, 11-12-2019, and 12-02-2020. The Commission further observes that all the subordinate offices of Income Tax situated in Bihar and Jharkhand works under the office of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar- Jharkhand, Patna and as such the RTI Applications filed by the Complainant are circulated among all the offices of Jharkhand and Bihar Region and every CPIO must pass an order in this respect. Due to this reason, multiple CPIOs are dealing with the RTI Applications filed by the Complainant.
The Commission further observes that the Complainant has not filed any first 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 neither filed any written objections nor presented himself 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 as well as for recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned CPIO 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. This intent militates against the spirit of the RTI Act which primarily focusses on providing information to the citizen.Page 19 of 26
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1400 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 61 matters 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. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. 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 No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2021/630320 and Others decided on 21.02.2024 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.Page 20 of 26
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 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.Page 21 of 26
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 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... ... ...Page 22 of 26
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 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 Page 23 of 26 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 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.Page 24 of 26
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 the advice of the Commission and filing repetitive similar RTI Applications which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invited 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..."Page 25 of 26
In view of the above said observations, the Commission again sternly cautions the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his right to information Act in future.
The instant Complaints are dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु ि) Date 20-03-2024 Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाणणत सत्यापित प्रनत) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 011- 26181827 Date Page 26 of 26