Central Information Commission
G I Dayardhana Rao vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 28 April, 2020
के न्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCITH/A/2018/152261-BJ
Mr. G. I. Dayardhana Rao
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit - II (2)
O/o the Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv)
Room No. 467, 3rd Floor
Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh
Hyderabad - 500004
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.04.2020
Date of Decision : 28.04.2020
Date of RTI application 14.04.2018
CPIO's response 16.05.2018
Date of the First Appeal 23.06.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 06.07.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 24.08.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on seeking information in respect of TEP petition filed by him against authorities of Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church (AELC) in collusion with Smt. Ponnekanti Manjula; amount of tax levied for the properties given as gifts by AELC.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 16.05.2018 informed that vide notification dated 07.03.2008 published in the gazette of India dated 28.03.2008, the office of Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) was included in the second schedule to the Right to Information Act 2005 and hence exempted from the provisions of the Act. The O/o the Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-II (2), Hyderabad, was part of O/o Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Hyderabad. Therefore, as per sub section 1 to section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the provisions of the Right to information Act, 2005 were not applicable and information sought by the applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005, could not be provided. Dissatisfied by Page 1 of 3 the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 06.07.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mobile switched off;
Respondent: Mr. Suvasis Das, DDIT, Unit II (2) through TC:
The Appellant remained unreachable despite several attempts made by the Commission. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the response of the CPIO / FAA. It was further informed that the TEP had been categorized and was under investigation. However, due to lockdown in the city, he was not able to access the physical records to ascertain the updated status.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"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 Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), 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."Page 2 of 3
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."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission advised the Respondent to furnish the updated status to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through e-mail.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (बिमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त( Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.िास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] निनांक / Date: 28.04.2020 Page 3 of 3