Central Information Commission
Rita Hore vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 27 June, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCITK/A/2018/629106-BJ
Ms. Rita Hore
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
DCIT, Hqrs (Admn. & Vig.)
Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
West Bengal & Sikkim Aayakar Bhawan
P - 7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.06.2019
Date of Decision : 27.06.2019
Date of RTI application 28.05.2018
CPIO's response 08.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 27.06.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 17.07.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding her previous e-RTI application bearing Registration Number CCITK/R/2017/50066 wherein information regarding Income Tax details of Shri Sujit Kumar Dutta, Smt. Mandira Dutta and Smt. Nairita Dutta, were sought for, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 08.06.2018 while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03.10.2012 in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC & Others, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)
(j) of the Respondent. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 17.07.2018, while providing a detailed point-wise response, upheld the CPIO's response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 11
Appellant: Ms. Rita Hore along with Mr. Sandipan Hore, through VC;
Respondent: Ms. Nivedita Prasad, DCIT through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought had been wrongly denied by the Respondent citing Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. She further informed that a court case is pending adjudication before the Ninth Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, District Court, wherein she required this information to substantiate her case. She further relied on her written submission. The Commission was in receipt of an e-mail from the Appellant dated 05.06.2019, wherein while explaining the background of the case, it was submitted that in the present case Appellant was mother in law of a lady, who had submitted in the court of Law in a criminal case that her father and mother both Government servants had made lavish expenditures and given to them cash and jewelleries worth lakhs of rupees in connection with the marriage. Furthermore, the details sought for was not to protect any personal interest or to use in a private matrimonial dispute between husband and wife for seeking maintenance but it was to prove innocence of entire husband family including his senior citizen father and she is a diabetes mellitus patient against whom at the behest of the Complainant, the State had initiated cases under Section 498A, 406, 506 (ii) and 34 IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The information, if shared, could be in greater public interest as stake of court, police, public prosecutor and husband and wife family was involved. Moreover, the question raised did not seek for disclosure of any new events/data or information, it seeks a confirmation from the Income Tax Department, as to whether the submissions made by the lady in the Court of Law was correct or not. For verification purpose even the Court case details had been shared. Moreover, the CPIO and Appellate Authority did not clarify as to how they concluded in this specific case that no greater public interest was involved in directing for disclosure of information. They also did not clarify the cases or category of cases they treat as greater public interest. If public interest was served by disclosing such information then it must be given. Public interest includes disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability in the working of a public authority (Decision No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00046 dated 02.05.2006). Furthermore, she relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of PUCL Vs. UOI in 2003 and UOI Vs. ADR in 2002 both in Civil Original/Appellate Jurisdiction, and the judgments were rendered by the Court comprising of division bench of two and three judges respectively, and thus forming precedent for all to follow, unless the same judgment was being overturned or declared void by a bigger division bench of the Supreme Court of India. These judgments had till date been never questioned or reversed, so as per precedent set in these judgments, the public authority was bound to disclose their assets and sources of the money to buy such assets to their employer and to the Government. These judgments were as per law in force at those times which were also not modified later on by the legislature. Moreover all these judgments and SLPs were announced before the implementation of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act which was effective since 16th January 2014, so the Lokpal Act being a legislative drive in operation that mandates disclosure of assets of public servants, so it strengthens the Supreme Court decisions rendered in 2002 and 2003 as referred earlier, which states that assets of public servants were disclosable. As also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, SLP judgment could not be applied uniformly to all cases to refuse access to assets of public servants, as it was a decision rendered in that specific matrix of facts of the case Hence, it was prayed to the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide her clear replies in this regard and further requested for appropriate compensation. In its reply, the Respondent while relying upon the several decisions of the Commission wherein "information relating to details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax Returns were held as personal information", denied disclosure of Page 2 of 11 information under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. They further relied on the decision 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. On being queried by the Commission regarding larger public interest in the matter, she replied that as stake of the Court, Police, Public Prosecutor and husband and wife's family were involved, it should be disclosed and provided to her. On being further queried by the Commission whether she had filed any Tax Evasion Petition in this regard, she replied in the negative and submitted that the IT Department had suggested her to specify the transaction relating to which the information had been sought. The information was being sought primarily to facilitate the adjudication process in respect of the charges levelled against the Appellant by the in-laws.
After the hearing, the Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent wherein it was submitted that on perusal of the Appeal petition before CIC, it was observed that the Appellant had countered the decision of the FAA on the basis of judgment of the CIC in the case of A M Kalra Vs. PEC University of Technology (MHRD) in case no.
CIC/RM/A/2014/004365-SA decided on 14.02.2017, observing that the dismissal of SLP of Girish case could not be considered as a binding precedent. It was further stated that (a) the information sought for in A M Kalra case was not related to Income Tax matter of a third party
(b) In a series of judgment, as stated below the CIC had upheld the decision of the Public Authority to deny information relating to Income Tax matter of a third party, applying the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Despande case. They further relied upon the decision of the Commission which was narrated as under:-
(i) Mr. Hardeep Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward - 3(1) & Ward - 1(5), Chandigarh, Appeal No. CIC/CCITC/A/2017/176949-BJ+CIC/DITIN/A/2017/174937-BJ decided on 19.01.2018.
(ii) Mr. D. Nagendra Prasad Vs. ITO, Ward - 6(5) & DCIT, Circle - 6 (1), Andhra Pradesh, Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/000800-BJ decided on 10.04.2017.
(iii) Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs. DCIT, Corporate Range - 2, Madurai, Appeal No. CIC/CCACH/A/2017/138794-BJ decided on 31.08.2018.
(iv) Ms. Uma Vs. ITO, Ward - 3(3), Hyderabad, Appeal No. CIC/CBODT/A/2016/294761-BJ decided on 20.07.2017.
(v) Mrs. Yamini Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Pali (Rajasthan), Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/000471-BJ decided on 23.03.2017.
It was further submitted that the Appellant had mentioned during the hearing that she had not asked for the Income Tax returns of Shri Sujit Kumar Dutta, Smt. Mahindra Dutta and Smt. Nairita Dutta, but for some clarification regarding transactions made by those persons and its reflection in Income Tax returns. In this regard, it was submitted that clarification of any matter was beyond the scope of the RTI Act, 2005 in view of various judgments of CIC and higher Courts. In the decision dated 09.06.2016 in F. No. CIC/CC/A/2014/002812/BS/10542, in the case of Smt. Bijal N Upadhyay Vs. Income Tax Department, the Commission held that the information relating to spouse was third party information. While arriving at such decision, it had referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 01.07.2009 (W.P. ( C ) 803/2009 in Vijay Prakash Vs. UOI and others), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had clarified that in a private dispute, between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by Page 3 of 11 virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8(1)(j) could not be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner was able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'Public Interest'.
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."
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 Page 4 of 11 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."
As regards the information sought regarding the Income Tax details of Shri Sujit Kumar Dutta, Smt. Mandira Dutta and Smt. Nairita Dutta, the Commission observed that the same fell in the category of Third Party information which was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission 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."
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
In this context, the decision of the Commission in Milap Choraria v. CBDT CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 dated 15.06.2009 can be cited wherein it had been held as under:
"15. From the above discussion, it would appear that the Income Tax Returns have been rightly held to be 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority; and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this information."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Naresh Kumar Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011 dated 24.11.2014 had observed as under:
"25. Indisputably, Section 8(1)(j) of the Act would be applicable to the information pertaining to Dr Naresh Trehan (petitioner in W.P.(C) 88/2010) and the information contained in the income tax returns would be personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. However, the CIC directed disclosure of information of Dr Trehan also by concluding that income tax returns and information provided for assessment was in relation to a "public activity." In my view, this is wholly erroneous and unmerited. The act of filing returns with the department cannot be construed as public Page 5 of 11 activity. The expression "public activity" would mean activities of a public nature and not necessarily act done in compliance of a statute. The expression "public activity"
would denote activity done for the public and/or in some manner available for participation by public or some section of public. There is no public activity involved in filing a return or an individual pursuing his assessment with the income tax authorities. In this view, the information relating to individual assessee could not be disclosed. Unless, the CIC held that the same was justified "in the larger public interest"
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the decision of Shailesh Gandhi v. CIC and Ors WP 8753 of 2013 dated 06.05.2015 had held as under
"16......the said contention is thoroughly misconceived as filing of Income Tax Returns can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a public activity, but is an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes and since the said information is held by the Income Tax Department in a fiduciary capacity, the same cannot be directed to be revealed unless the prerequisites for the same are satisfied.
23...........Since the right to privacy has been recognised as a fundamental right to which a citizen is entitled to, therefore unless the conditions mentioned in Section 8 (1)
(j) is satisfied, the information cannot be provided."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Vinubhai Haribhai Patel (Malavia) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Civil Application No. 7187 of 2014 dated 16.07.2015 had held as under:
"5. Now, turning to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the kind and nature of the information demanded by the petitioner clearly falls within the expression "personal information". The personal character of the information demanded in the nature of Income-tax Returns of the private parties to get disclosure about the payment of tax by them which was again in order to know about their status as agriculturists declared to be so by the authorities in the legal proceedings, could be indeed said to be personal. It was in the background of litigation between the petitioner and the said private persons relating to their property rights wherein the Will in favour of private parties was disputed and the disputes of civil nature were being agitated before the forum concerned and the court. This information being personal in nature, could not be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner, rather they were clearly exempted information under Section 8(1)(j). The contention of larger public interest justifying the disclosure does not exist. In disclosing the said information asked for by the petitioner relating to the private parties, there was no element of public interest to be sub-served. The information was personal information relating to third parties. The attendant facts and circumstances and the litigation between the petitioner and those parties, instead indicated that the information was personal information which was asked for by the petitioner for his own personal interest and private purpose. Respondent No. 3-Central Information Commissioner was eminently justified in taking a view that there was no public interest present in the information claimed to be supplied, rightly denying the same by dismissing the appeal."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CPIO vs. Hemant Kumar Behera W.P.(C) 11658/2017 & CM No. 47383/2017 dated 27.08.2018 held as under:
Page 6 of 11"17. Mere apprehension that a third party has declared income, which is lower than the true income, cannot justify disclosure of Income Tax Returns in larger public interest."
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:
"30. What concludes therefore from the gamut of discussions herein above is that in a given case information pertaining to assets and liabilities can be disclosed with the rider that there must be larger public interest involved justifying such disclosure. 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. This situation indeed appears to be a fishing expedition embarked upon by the Petitioner without any bona fide public interest. In these circumstances, it obtains that disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and falls under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."
The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Municipal Corporation Delhi vs. Rajbir W.P.(C) 13219/2009 and CM 14393/2009, decided on 24.08.2017 had held as under:
"9..................Respondent has not provided any credible justification for seeking information regarding the personal assets of the MCD employee in question.
10. There can be no doubt that the information sought by respondent is personal information concerning an employee of MCD. Such information could be disclosed only if respondent could establish that disclosure of such information was justified by larger public interest. Even if the PIO was satisfied that disclosure of such information was justified, the PIO was required to follow the procedure given under Section 11 of the Act; that is, the PIO was required to give a notice to the concerned employee stating that he intends to disclose the information and invite the employee to make submissions on the question whether such information ought to be disclosed."
With regard to Appellant's case pending adjudication before the appropriate Court, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Union of India vs. Shiv Narain, WP(C) 7204/2016 dated 27.03.2019 held as under:
"2. The respondent herein sought information from the petitioner on the following two issues:- "1. Whether the report vide letter no. RSVY/CE/CE & PM/55(1) 892 dated 12.02.2013 addressed to Inspector of police, CBI, ACB, Patna by Shri D.S. Kapur CE cum PM RSVY project Zone, CPWD, Patna in connection with the subject referred above was submitted by the CBI before the sanctioning Authority before grant of prosecution sanction. 2. The certified copy of the note sheet of the above mentioned case from the beginning to the issue of prosecution sanction may also be given for which I am ready to pay the requisite fee."
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly drawn my attention to an order dated February 12, 2019 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1632/2019, which is Page 7 of 11 an appeal arising from the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 2272/2013 dated September 16, 2014 and the Division Bench in LPA 471/2015 dated August 17, 2015, wherein information also includes copy of the note sheet for processing the decision to refer the said case to Anti Corruption Branch of CBI for investigation. In the said case, the said information was denied to the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sharma.
5. The Supreme Court in its order dated February 12, 2019 has held as under:-
4. The dispute remains about document Nos.1, 3 and 4 as they were not supplied considering the provisions of Section 8(i)(h) of the Right to Information Act which prohibits disclosure of information connected with ongoing investigations and prosecutions and it was opined that it was source information that has triggered the anti-
corruption proceedings and nothing should be done which affects the proceedings or which compromises the position of the sources of information. 5. In view of the aforesaid reasons employed by the Information Commissioner, we are of the opinion that there was justification in refusing to supply the aforesaid documents. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that during the course of trial, if the trial Court feels it appropriate and if a prayer is made, the documents may be called by Court in accordance with law.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent herein shall have the liberty to seek the document, which he has sought under the RTI Act from the learned Trial Court, in terms of the order of the Supreme Court. Suffice it would be to state that it is for the respondent herein to seek appropriate orders from the learned Trial Court.
In view of the order of the Supreme Court, the order of the CIC dated February 29, 2016 is set aside, the writ petition is allowed."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Mahesh Mangalat (Date of Decision: 17th March, 2015) (W.P.(C) No. 7431/2011) had held:-
"18. Prior to the enactment of the RTI Act, access to any information pertaining to public authorities was correlated to the locus standi of the requestor. In other words, it was necessary for the information-seeker to show why he/she wanted the information before a decision could be made to give or not to give the information sought by him. With the enactment of the RTI Act this requirement has been changed drastically. The present Act abolishes the concept of locus standi as under section 6(2) of the RTI Act no reasons need to be given for seeking information. However, this restriction on disclosure of reasons cannot be misconstrued to mean that any information pertaining to a public authority or its employees is public information.
19. It is a settled law that for seeking personal information regarding any employee of the public authority the applicant must disclose a "sustainable public interest‟. Even Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act was enacted to ensure that all information furnished to public authorities including personal information is not given free access to. As per Page 8 of 11 this Section unless the CPIO or the State PIO or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies, the disclosure of any such information that invades the privacy of an individual is not permissible. Moreover, the Commission relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein in the context of exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Court had held that exemption provided under Section 8 of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. The relevant observations are mentioned as under:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252] ). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)].
23. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision."
The Appellant could not contest the submissions of the Respondent or establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests. The Commission noted that the decisions cited above by the Appellant in the matter of PUCL Vs. UOI (2003) and UOI Vs. ADR (2002), pertained to different facts and circumstances on issues revolving around Electoral Reforms whereas in the present instance no larger public interest warranting disclosure of information was justified since the details were required to contest her family dispute.
With regard to a reference made by the Appellant for disclosure of Assets and Liabilities of Public Servants under Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, the Commission referred to the OM dated 1st December, 2016, wherein it was stated that with the passing of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2016, the Public Servants (Furnishing of Information and Annual Return of Assets and Liabilities and the Limits for Exemption of Assets in Filing Returns) Rules, 2014 and all the amendments made thereto have become redundant.
3. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2016, as referred to above, substitutes the provision of section 44 of the Principal Act by the following new provision:-
"44. On and from the date of commencement of this Act, every public servant shall make a declaration of his assets and liabilities in such form and manner as may be prescribed."
4. Thus, under the Public Servants (Furnishing of Information and Annual Return of Assets and Liabilities and the Limits for Exemption of Assets in Filing Returns) Rules, Page 9 of 11 2014 there is no requirement for filing of declarations of assets and liabilities by public servants now. The Government is in the process of finalising a fresh set of rules. The said rules will be notified in due course to prescribe the form, manner and timelines for filing of declaration of assets and liabilities by the public servants under the revised provision of the said Act. All public servants will henceforth be required to file the declarations as may be prescribed by the fresh set of rules.
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.Page 10 of 11
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of above referred decisions of the Superior Courts, no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of her grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 27.06.2019
Page 11 of 11