Central Information Commission
Omprakash Kashiram vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 15 December, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCITM/A/2021/110403 +
CIC/CCITM/A/2021/118524
Om Prakash Kashiram ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Chief Income Tax Commissioner,
RTI Cell, Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,
M.K. Road, New Marine Lines,
Mumbai-400020, Maharashtra .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13/12/2022
Date of Decision : 13/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on the same RTI queries.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal(s):
RTI application filed on : 21/12/2020 & 26/12/2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record & N.A.
First appeal filed on : 31/12/2020 & 15/02/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record & N.A.
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27/02/2021 & 27/04/2021
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.12.2020 & 26. 12.2020 seeking the following information:
1. "Copy of Income Tax assessment for year 2019 to 2020 in respect of Shri Mukesh Ambani from all sources of income may be provided duly attested by PIO with name and designation due to Shri Mukesh Ambani is purchasing all stakes of Central Government for the Company of Bharat Petroleum Corporation and he is richer than to central Government who has got lot of money from all sources of Income and all taxes.
2. Please provide the copy of assessment of income tax for total profits of Bharat Petroleum Corporation from all sources for the year 2001 to 2020 year wise duly attested by PIO with name and designation.
3. Please provide the documents regarding the copy of assessment of income tax of all investors those are investing in companies of Shri Mukesh Ambani during the period from March 2020 to Dec 2020 due to Shri Mukesh Ambani is heavy borrowing/debt as per news channel reporting and now he is purchasing BPCL.
4. Please provide the documents regarding copy of assessment of income tax of Shri Adani from all sources of income who are major player for purchase of Government properties and companies.
5. Please provide the documents to protect all income tax commissioners including Chief Income Tax Commissioner in Jail for not putting proper assessment of income of all players those are purchasing/acquiring Govt. properties and companies or overall company like BPCL.
6. Name of all income tax commissioners and Chief Income Tax Commissioners those are assessing the Income Taxes of Shri Mukesh Ambani and Shri Adani for the overall business of India and aboard. All Income Tax commissioners and Chief Income Tax Commissioners have responsible for conversion Indian public properties into private properties.
7. Name of all income tax officers may be provided those are assessing the income tax of foreign countries players who are purchasing or submit bids for purchase of Public Properties, companies and Air India.
8. Please provide the documents for not close all income tax offices of all over of India for transferring this RTI Application to Income tax dept in Bangalore due to return records are maintaining by Income Tax Department in Bangalore.
9. Copy of total earning with showing total income tax of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for the year 2018 to 2019 where BPCL has increased rate of all petroleum products due to increase of rate of crude oil from July 2018 to Sept 2018. In this connection a copy of BPCL letter No. BPCLD/R/2018/1368 dated 11 November 2020 is enclosed with this RTI Application.2
10 Total income tax collection from 2001 to 2020 year wise may be provided duly attested by PIO with name and designation.
11. Copy of Income tax exemption for BPCL may be provided duly attested by PIO with name and designation."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.12.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record and the Appellant filed the Second Appeal under reference vide File No. CIC/CCITM/A/2021/110403.
Subsequently, the Appellant filed another First Appeal on 15.02.2021 stating as under:
"70 in numbers orders received from all income tax offices and Shri Mukesh Ambani and Shri Adani are single persons and one person not equivalent persons to offices those are issued orders in connection with Shri Mukesh Ambani and Shri Adani.
....RTI Application has transferred to overall income tax offices of Mumbai and not transfer RTI Application where the office income tax near to residence of Shri Mukesh Ambani and Shri Adani."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, the appellant approached the Commission with the Second Appeal vide CIC/CCITM/A/2021/118524 stating as under inter alia-
"(c) Maharashtra DGP may be directed to details inquiry for no black mailing to Shri Mukesh Ambani in name of recent incident to his home and public of his resident also fear due to recent incident or explosive found near to his house or drama was created for explosive.
(d) The Principal chief information commissioner is not able to take action for point No.1 to 11 on RTI Application the case may be referred to Lokpal of lndia for total investigation and avoiding the media trials which is continuing on recent incident near to home of Shri Mukesh Ambani.
(e) Rs.25000/- as refusal of RTI application by the PlO, lncome Tax Department i.e. the Principal Chief lncome Tax Commissioner may be imposed and still not correct office of income tax assessment of Shri Mukesh Ambani and Adani were found under the RTI Act 2005.
(f) The correct office of lncome taxes assessment of above business men may be provided for submission of another RTI Application.3
(g) All income tax offices of Mumbai and suburban may be directed not to give the same reply which were matched with each other for the above businessmen.
(h) The correct name and address of Income tax office where both businessmen are submitted their replies for assessment of income tax may be informed to public of lndia due to these business are buying lot of public properties."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Subhendu Sinha, Income Tax officer (HQ) System & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission recalls the adverse remarks recorded against the appalling misuse of the RTI Act being continued by the Appellant time and again. While this bench of the Commission has alone heard more than 20 cases, the instant case is being heard as a part of 19 other cases of the same Appellant filed against different public authorities, and the records of the Commission suggest that till date more than 400 odd cases of him have been disposed of by different benches. This bench had recorded in one such case heard vide File No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/126122 as under:
"The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of this bench dated 10.02.2021 in an earlier set of appeals filed by the same Appellant (CIC/DOP&T/A/2019/114497 + 10 other Appeals) wherein the following adverse observations were recorded:
'This bench of the Commission heard 11 other Appeals of the Appellant simultaneously and upon a conjoint consideration of these cases it is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant is unabashedly filing multiple RTI Applications, which in most cases is repetitive in nature as the same RTI Application is filed with different public authorities. Moreover, the queries of the Appellant neither conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act nor can these be comprehended easily. The Appellant seeks all sundry information under the garb of transparency and in the process of dealing with these RTI Applications, at some point in time, invariably; each public authority is dealing with the same RTI Application more than once. The 4 Commission is also irked to note that in all of these Appeals, the Appellant has stated in his Second Appeal that he does not want to avail of the opportunity to plead his case in person or through his representative also. This further establishes the fact that the Appellant is merely a habitual RTI Applicant with no intention of gaining access to information. The RTI Applications, First Appeal(s) and Second Appeals of the Appellant without any substance or merit has a cascading effect on the functioning of the public authorities and throttles the letter and spirit of the RTI Act in addition to causing a huge loss of public money on stationery and allied resources. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Appellant shall note that even the superior Courts have recognized the misuse of the RTI Act as an impediment to ensuring transparency and probity in the functioning of the government through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation......' xxx"
The instant case appears to be a mere extension of the averred appeals in terms of the manner in which the information is sought for and the grounds on which the Appeal(s) are premised on. Further, as observed in the earlier cases, the Appellant has indicated in the grounds of the instant Appeal that he does not want to avail of the opportunity to plead his case. In addition to this, the Appellant has also returned the notice of hearing of the Commission as "Refused"; he fails to place proper facts on record in terms of the copy of replies received by him or he simply decides for himself that he is not required to accept certain replies that he deems to be improper or returns the replies to the CPIO(s) citing expiry of mandated time period. The Appellant is strongly rebuked for making a mockery of the RTI Act in as much as the contents of all of his RTI Applications and grounds of Appeal(s) are outright ludicrous and completely bereft of merit. The time and resources of the Commission invested in disposing off the cases of the Appellant as well as the time and resources invested by the public authorities in responding to the Commission's notice(s) as well as attending to the hearings clearly appears to be an avoidable cost to the public exchequer, and the Appellant ought to have due regard to this fact in the spirit of the RTI Act.
The Appellant not seeking for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act yet being hysterical in his Second Appeal(s) reminds this bench about the following observations made by the Apex Court in the above discussed judgment of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. against impractical demands for information under the RTI Act:5
"....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. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' 6 And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...xxx '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 beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.' Similarly, the Preamble of the RTI Act also acknowledges 'efficient operations of the Governments', 'optimum use of limited fiscal resources' as a valid consideration while exercising ones right to information.
Having observed as above, the Commission is not inclined to adjudge the action/alleged inaction of the Respondent in the instant matter and summarily rejects the Appeal(s).
The appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7