Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 27 September, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.(s):- CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637145-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637360-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637372-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/600106-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/612844-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/612846-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613039-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/614112-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616379-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/600107-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/600108-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613125-BJ+
CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/614141-BJ
Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy
.... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO & Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 1
Office of the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Range - 1 & 2, Central Revenue Building
Ravindra Path, Hazaribagh - 825301
2. CPO
Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 2
Office of the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Range - 1 & 2, Central Revenue Building
Ravindra Path, Hazaribagh - 825301
3. CPIO
Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 3
Office of the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Range - 3, Bokaro, Sector - I/C, B. S. City - 827001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.09.2019 / 26.09.2019
Date of Decision : 27.09.2019
Page 1 of 15
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637145-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 02.02.2018 CPIO's response 09.03.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT, Range -2, Hazaribagh, regarding the number of Personal telephonic calls made by the JCIT, Range-2, Hazaribagh, from his official phone during the month of December 2017.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 09.03.2018, stated that no such register for telephonic calls were maintained at their office and hence, the same could not be provided. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory reply from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637360-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 05.02.2018 CPIO's response 07.03.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT, Range -1, Hazaribagh, regarding the number of personal telephonic calls made by the JCIT, Range-1 Hazaribagh from his official phone during the month of January, 2018.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 07.03.2018, stated that no such register for telephone calls were maintained at their office. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory reply from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637372-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 13.02.2018
CPIO's response 09.03.2018
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
Page 2 of 15
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT, Range -2, Hazaribagh regarding the number of Personal telephonic calls made by the JCIT Range-2 , Hazaribagh, from his official phone during the month of January, 2018.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 09.03.2018, stated that no such register for telephonic calls were maintained at their office and hence, the same could not be provided. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading and unsatisfactory reply from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 4 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/600106-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 30.06.2017 CPIO's response 31.08.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT-1, Hazaribagh, regarding the number of personal calls made through office telephone by the JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh, during the month of June, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 31.08.2017, stated that no personal telephone calls had been made through office telephone during the month of June, 2017. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of reply within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 5 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/612844-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 10.12.2017 CPIO's response 11.01.2018 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT-3, Bokaro, regarding the number of personal telephonic calls made by the JCIT, Range-3, Bokaro, from his official phone during the month of November, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 11.01.2018, stated that the number of personal telephonic calls made by the JCIT, Range-3, Bokaro, from his official phone during the month of November, 2017, was NIL, as the same was not maintained at their Range Office. Dissatisfied due to Page 3 of 15 wrongly and unjustifiably refusal of response by the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 6 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/612846-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 19.08.2017 CPIO's response 11.10.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT-1, Hazaribagh, regarding the total amount paid on account of personal calls made by the JCIT from official telephone allotted to him during the month of July, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 11.10.2017, stated that the total amount paid on account of personal calls made by the JCIT from official telephone allotted to him during the month of July, 2017, was NIL. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of reply within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 7 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613039-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 03.09.2017 CPIO's response 11.10.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of JCIT-1, Hazaribag, regarding the total expenditure made on official telephone / mobile phone allotted to JCIT, Range -1, Hazaribagh, during the month of August, 2017 on account of personal use of the phone/ mobile phone and the copy of call details of official phones allotted to JCIT, Hazaribagh for the month of August, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 11.10.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Complainant with the remark NIL. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of response within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
Page 4 of 15
RTI -8 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/614112-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 08.09.2017
CPIO's response 10.10.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of JCIT, Range-3, Bokaro, regarding the total expenditure made on official telephone / mobile phone allotted to JCIT, Range-3, Bokaro, during the month of August, 2017 on account of personal use of the phone/mobile phone and copy of call details of official phones allotted to JCIT, Range-3, Bokaro, for the month of August, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 10.10.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 9 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616379-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 13.11.2017 CPIO's response 19.12.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh, regarding the number of Personal telephonic calls made by the JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh, from his official phone during the month of October, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 19.12.2017, stated that no such register for telephonic calls were maintained at their office and hence, the same could not be provided. Dissatisfied due to non- receipt of response from the CPIO within the stipulated time, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 10 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/600107-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 30.06.2017
CPIO's response 31.08.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
Page 5 of 15
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT-1, Hazaribagh, regarding the amount paid on account of use of official vehicle for personal use of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Hazaribagh, during the month of June, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 31.08.2017, stated that the office vehicle was solely used for official purpose and therefore, the requisite information was NIL. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of reply within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 11 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/600108-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 30.06.2017 CPIO's response 05.09.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh, regarding the amount paid on account of stay in the Guest House of the Department by Shri S. K. Roy, JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh, during the month of June, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 05.09.2017, stated that the amount paid on account of stay in the Guest House of the Department by Shri S. K. Roy, JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh, during the month of June, 2017, was Rs. 1,225/-. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of reply from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 12 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613125-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 03.09.2017 CPIO's response 11.10.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh, regarding the total rent paid on account of stay at Government Guest House at Hazaribagh by JCIT, during the month of August, 2017 and the copy of receipt for payment of rent thereof.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 11.10.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Complainant wherein for point 01 , it was stated that no Guest House was allotted to the JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh and for point 02, that the question did not arise. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of Page 6 of 15 reply from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI -13 File No. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/614141-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 08.09.2017 CPIO's response 10.10.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of JCIT, Range-3, Bokaro, regarding the total rent paid on account of stay at Government Guest House Bokaro by JCIT, during the month of August, 2017 and the copy of receipt for payment of rent.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 10.10.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Complainant wherein for point 01 , it was stated that no Government Guest House was allotted to the JCIT, Range-3, Bokaro and for point 02, that the question did not arise. Dissatisfied due to receipt of misleading reply from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Pranob Koley, JCIT, Mr. Ravi Kumar, ITO, Hq., Mr. Gopal Sonar, OS and Mr. Raj Kishore Shah, Inspector through VC;
The Commission decided to club all these matters together since the information sought in all the matters pertained to the allegations of the Complainant regarding misuse of official facilities.
The Complainant reiterated that the information sought by him was not provided to his satisfaction and that most of his RTI applications were replied by way of a common order by the CPIO which was non-reasoned and a "cut paste" job done without proper application of mind. In addition, the Complainant submitted that the information sought related to misuse of official facilities provided to the officers for personal use and that his intention was to expose the alleged malpractices in the Respondent Public Authority. Therefore, he vehemently argued for imposition of penalty and disciplinary action against the CPIO for his casual and callous approach in dealing with such RTI applications. On a query from the Commission regarding the reasons for not filing the First Appeal in all these cases, the Complainant expressed his dissatisfaction over the First Appeal Mechanism within the Public Authority and narrated his personal experience in several other matters where the FAA had merely concurred with the CPIO without application of mind. He argued that in the year 2018, he did not file any First Appeal because of lack of trust and confidence in the institution of FAA. However, with the transfer of officials, he had since started filing the First Appeal. The Complainant raised a legal point with regard to the filing of First Appeal mandatorily as according to him there was no such provision in the RTI Act, 2005 that contained a provision to this effect. In its reply, the Respondent (JCIT, Page 7 of 15 Range 1 and 2, Hazaribagh and Range- 3, Bokaro) at the outset submitted that being very recently deputed to the post of JCIT and CPIO, Hazaribagh and Bokaro, he was not well conversant with the facts of each matter. However, with regard to the instant matters, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO and stated that no such register was maintained at their office and that official calls were made through their Mobile Numbers since the Landline Connections in their office were defunct and inoperative. As regards the information on use of official vehicle and guest house, the Respondent re-iterated the reply of the CPIO. The Complainant also submitted that the official numbers of Jharkhand Division mentioned on the website of the Public Authority were not functional/ out of service and that the updated list of telephone/ official mobile numbers should be mentioned on the website of the Public Authority for the ease and convenience of the public at large.
Furthermore, the Commission referred to similar issues relating to personal calls made by the officials that were heard and adjudicated by it in Complaint/Appeal Nos.:- CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141725-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141748-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604690-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141750-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141751-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604691-BJ dated 03.04.2018, CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140438-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141736-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140441-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140454-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141726-BJ dated 27.03.2018, CIC/CCABH/C/2017/126459-BJ+ CIC/CCABH/C/2017/126461-BJ+ CIC/DITIN/C/2017/132116-BJ+ CIC/DITIN/C/2017/195087- BJ+ CIC/ CCABH/C/2017/126460-BJ dated 20.03.2018; CIC/DITIN/C/ 2017/195100-BJ+ CIC/DOREV/C/2017/112066-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017 /111833-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111834-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/ 111731-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111732-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/ 140466-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140467-BJ+ CIC/DITIN/C/2017/ 195098-BJ +CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111835-BJ dated 09.03.2018; CIC/DITIN/C/2017/195088-BJ + CIC/DITIN/C/2017/195089-BJ + CIC/DITIN/C/2017/195091-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111738-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111435-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111440-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111441-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111442-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111445-BJ dated 26.02.2018; CIC/DITIN/C/ 2017/195084-BJ dated 28.12.2017; CIC/DITIN/C/2017/316033-BJ dated 18.10.2017; CIC-CBDTD-C-2016-299255-BJ dated 21.07.2017; CIC/BS/C/2016/000261-BJ dated 14.06.2017; CIC/BS/C/2016/000150-BJ dated 08.06.2017; CIC/BS/C/2016/000270-BJ dated 05.04.2017; CIC/BS/C/2016/000047-BJ dated 03.04.2017 etc. The Commission observed that similar/identical issues relating to alleged misuse of official vehicle were heard and adjudicated in Complaint No.:- CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141725-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141748-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604690-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141750-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141751-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604691-BJ dated 03.04.2018CIC/DITIN/C/2017/195088-BJ + CIC/DITIN/C/2017/195089-BJ + CIC/DITIN/C/2017/195091-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111738-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111435-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111440-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111441-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111442-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111445-BJ dated 26.02.2018.
The Commission however, reiterated that similar issues relating to stay in the Guest House were also heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Complaint No.: CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141725- Page 8 of 15 BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141748-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604690-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141750-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/141751-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/604691-BJ dated 03.04.2018, CIC/CCABH/C/2017/126459-BJ+ CIC/CCABH/C/2017/126461-BJ+ CIC/DITIN/C/2017/132116-BJ+ CIC/DITIN/C/2017/195087- BJ+ CIC/CCABH/C/2017/126460-BJ dated 20.03.2018, CIC/DITIN/C/2017/195100-BJ + CIC/DOREV/C/2017/112066-BJ+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111833-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111834-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111731-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111732-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140466-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/140467-BJ + CIC/DITIN/C/2017/195098-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111835-BJ dated 09.03.2018 and CIC/DITIN/C /2017/195088-BJ + CIC/DITIN/C/2017/195089-BJ + CIC/DITIN/C/2017 /195091-BJ + CIC/CCAPT/C/2017/111738-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017 /111435-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111440-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/ 111441-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/111442-BJ + CIC/CCITP/C/2017/ 111445-BJ dated 26.02.2018 etc. The Complainant acknowledged the decision of the Commission in similar earlier matters and that in several matters he had withdrawn his Complaints. However, he stated that the instant cases can be distinguished from the earlier matters since in earlier matter he was not contesting the Complaints on the ground of delay. He specifically referred to Complaint Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637145, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/637360, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/600106, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/612846, CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613039 + CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/614112+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/616379 + CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/600107+ CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/600108 CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/613125 + CIC/CCAPT/C/2018/614141wherein he cited delay in the response of the CPIO.
However, it was noted that the decision of the Commission was based on the tone and tenor of the subject matter dealt with in the aforesaid cases and the response was furnished by the Respondent keeping in view the contextual framework of the issues deliberated in these matters. In the light of discussion in the instant cases, the Respondent enabled himself to be armed with a specific response to the queries raised by the Complainant and consistently argued about the Complainant not filing First Appeal in accordance with Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to remedy his grievance, if any. The Complainant prayed for imposition of penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
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 ........"Page 9 of 15
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."
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."
In this context, the Commission also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."Page 10 of 15
The Commission also observed the position regarding disclosure of personal information of employees has been further clarified by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 which would be applicable where personal details of third party employees is sought. The relevant extracts of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 wherein the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande was referred is as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature;
secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim in the matter of Sancha Bahadur Subba vs. State of Sikkim W.P. (C) 31/2017 dated 30.04.2018 had held as under:
"As can be culled out from the averments and submissions, the Petitioner herein suspects that the Respondent No. 5 is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, however mere suspicion without any prima facie material to substantiate it does not justify the disclosure of such information of the Respondent No. 5 as rests with the concerned government authority."
In the context of utilisation of efficacious alternative remedy, the Commission referred to the decision of the Division Bench of the Apex Court in Roshina T. vs. Page 11 of 15 Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NO.11759 OF 2018 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30465 of 2017) dated 03.12.2018 wherein it was held as under:
"15. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on thepart of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies byway of a civil suit or application available to anaggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226of the Constitution being special and extraordinary it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pande vs. Usha Rani, 1992 (4) SCC 61 and Dwarka Prasad Agrawal vs BD Agrawal, (2003) 6 SCC 230)."
Moreover, in the matter of GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sri Ikbal & Ors. in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6989-6990 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.17704-17705 of 2012)dated 22.08.2013, it was held as under:
"27. There is one more aspect in the matter which has troubled us. Against the action of the Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the borrower had a remedy of appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17. The remedy provided under Section 17 is an efficacious remedy. The borrower did not avail of that remedy and further remedies from that order and instead directly approached the High Court in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
31. No doubt an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 but by now it is well settled that where a statute provides efficacious and adequate remedy, the High Court will do well in not entertaining a petition under Article 226. On misplaced considerations, statutory procedures cannot be allowed to be circumvented."
A reference can also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011 (2) SCC 782, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
"23. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It is well settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person."Page 12 of 15
With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on:
01.06.2012) wherein it was held:
" 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.Page 13 of 15
......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission also observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain v. V.P. Pandey, CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4785/ 2017 dated 10.10.2017 adjudicated on the correctness of an order of the Commission dated 17.04.2017 whereby the Respondent was cautioned to exercise due care in future and to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished to the RTI applicants. It was decided that:
"2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the CIC had accepted that there was a delay in providing the necessary information to the petitioner, the CIC had not imposed the penalty as required under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is well settled that imposing of the penalty is a discretionary measure. In Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 a division bench of this Court had considered the question whether the levy of penalty was discretionary and held as under..........
3. In this case it is apparent that the CIC had in its discretion considered that a order cautioning the CPIO would be sufficient. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of discretion."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of R.K. Jain v. CIC and Anr. in W.P.(C) 4152/2017 dated 10.10.2017 had held as under:
"5. The question whether the CIC had the discretion to restrict the penalty or whether penalty as provided under Section 20 of the Act is mandatory, is no longer res integra. The said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 and the relevant extract of the said decision is set out below....
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the CIC. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009 Date of decision: 04.03.2010 (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another); had held as under:
"3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty. If there is a delay and it is explained, the question will only revolve on whether the explanation is acceptable or not. If there had been a delay of a year and if there was a Superintendent, who was prodding the Public Information Officer to act, that itself should be seen a circumstance where the Page 14 of 15 government authorities seemed reasonably aware of the compulsions of time and the imperatives of providing information without any delay. The 2nd respondent has got what he has wanted and if there was a delay, the delay was for reasons explained above which I accept as justified."
The Complainant could not substantiate his claims regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observed that the CPIO had sent a response to the Complainant as per available record, hence no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. Moreover, the contention of the Respondent pertaining to the non-utilization of the mechanism under Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 remained unsubstantiated and unanswered by the Complainant. Furthermore, in the light of the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court as cited above, it is evident that in the judicial / quasi judicial process the procedures for remedial action should invariably be exhausted unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so.
Nonetheless, the Commission instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Complaints stand disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 27.09.2019 Copy to:
1- The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building , Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand;Page 15 of 15