Central Information Commission
Mr.Niranjan Mohanty vs Cbdt on 25 June, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000336/LS
Appellant : Niranjan Mohanty
Respondent : Income Tax Deptt;. Bhubaneswar
Date of hearing : 25.6.2013
Date of decision : 25.6.2013
FACTS
Heard today dated 25.6.2013. Appellant not present. The Department is represented by Shri Suresh Shivanandan, JCIT, Bhubaneswar, (AA).
2. In the RTI application dated 2.11.2012, the appellant had sought the following information:-
"(1) Is it a fact that on 9th August 2005, Income Tax officials conducted raids at three top engineering colleges viz. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT), Krupajal Engineering College (KEC) and ITER?
(2) Is it a fact that raids were also conducted at the houses of Achyuta Samanta, then Chancellor of KIIT, KEC Chamar Bhabani Charan Rath & ITER Chaman Manoj Nayak?
(3) Is it fact that during the raid Rs. 4,00,000/-, Rs. 75,00,000/- and Rs.
50,00,000/- in cash were respectival seized from the houses of Achyuta Samanta, Bhabani Chaman Rath and Manoj Nayak?
(4) IS it a fact that rupees one crore was seized from six lockers that Achyuta Samanta and his associates had in different banks alongwith some incriminating documents?
(5) What were incriminating documents seized?
(6) Who were the other associates of Achyuta Samanta whose lockers were opened?
(7) What was the illegal donations each of these institutions was illegal to have collected?
(8) What steps the Income Tax Department has so far taken against these raided Institutions and their top brass?"
3. ACT, Circle-1 (2), Bhubaneswar, by his letter of 5.12.2011 had informed the appellant that the requested information could not be disclosed u/s 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. On appeal, the Addl. CIT Range-2 (AA), vide order dated 25.1.2011, had taken the view that the requested information was prohibited from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
4. The present appeal is directed against the above order.
5. During the hearing, Shri Shivanandan stands by the decisions of the CPIO and AA. His first and foremost contention is that the appellant has not sought any information; he has asked questions which the CPIO is not mandated to answer under the law. His second and, more important, contention is that the appellant has sought personal information regarding the individuals / entities which are purported to have been raided by the Income Tax Department and this information is prohibited from disclosure in terms of the Supreme Court judgment dated 3.10.2012 in Grish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs Central Information Commission.
DECISION
6. It is pertinent to mention that as per material available on the Commission's file, some information about the raids in question was published in the Telegraph of 11th / 13th August, 2005. Some information was also available in yahooindianews of 10.8.2005. As some information has already attracted media attention, the shroud of secrecy on the requested information is not justified, this not being in line with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. In para 01 of the RTI application, the appellant has sought to know whether any raids were conducted in the premises of KIIT, KEC and ITER. This query is required to be answered in 'yes' or 'no'. No law prohibits disclosure of this information. The same is true of queries raised in paras 02, 03 & 04. If the IT officials conducted search & seizure operations as per law, it is presumable that they would have taken some consequential action during the eight years that have gone by since then. Viewed thus, in my opinion query raised in para 08 also needs to be responded to. However, as regards queries raised in paras 05, 06 and 07, they appear to be not specific and conjectural in nature and, therefore, need not be responded to. In short I am of the opinion that the CPIO is required to respond to paras 01, 02, 03, 04 & 08, particularly when some information is already in public domain. Even otherwise, I hold the opinion that it would be in the larger public interest to disclose this information and, therefore, Shri Shivanandan reliance on Girish Ramchandra Deshpande does not come to his aid. I order accordingly.
7. This order may be complied with in 04 weeks.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K L Das) Dy. Registrar Address of parties
1. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (2) & CPIO, Aaykar Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Rajaswa Vihar, Bhubaneswar - 751007
2. Shri Niranjan Mohanty 492, Gangotri Nagar, Sishupalgada, Bhubaneswar - 751002