Central Information Commission
Mrjeewan Kumar vs Botanical Survey Of India, Kotkatta on 5 May, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/C/2014/000440
CIC/SA/C/2014/000453
VIDEO CONFERENCE - PUNE/KOLKATA
Jeevan Kumar vs. Botanical Survey of India
Important Dates and time taken:
CIC/SA/C/2014/000440
RTI:12614 FA:19714 Complaint:141114
Dismissed as misuse Hearing:2842015 Decision: 05052015
of RTI
CIC/SA/C/2014/000453
RTI:12614 FA:21714 Complaint:201114
Dismissed as misuse Hearing:2842015 Decision: 05052015
of RTI
Parties Present:
CIC/SA/C/2014/000440 & 000453 Page 1
The complainant is present for video conference at NIC Centre, Pune. The public
authority is present for joint video conference at NIC centre, Kolkatta. The complainant
has filed the above two complaints against the same public authority and hence they
are taken up together for hearing today.
FACTS:
CIC/SA/C/2014/000440
2. The complainant through his RTI application sought the details of TDS deducted from his salary before his retirement. Claiming that no information was received from CPIO, the complainant filed complaint with the CIC under section 18 of the RTI Act. CIC/SA/C/2014/000453
3. Complainant through his RTI application sought information with respect to his letter dt 24.4.2014, date of receipt of letter, action taken report, final decision of DDO, & ground for refusal in issuing the endorsement. PIO replied. Being unsatisfied with PIO reply, the appellant made First Appeal. First Appellate Authority directed the PIO to provide information. In compliance of which CPIO replied on 30.9.2015. Being unsatisfied with the PIO reply, the Complainant has approached the Commission in Complaint Under Section 18 of RTI Act. Proceedings Before the Commission:
3. Both the parties made their submissions through video conference from Pune/Kolkatta.
CIC/SA/C/2014/000440
4. The complainant submitted that the respondent authority has not given proper information about the TDS they made during the financial year 201314 as a result of which he paid more income tax and thus he was put to loss. On the other hand, the respondent officer, Mr. AK Pathak, FAA explained to the Commission that the complainant has been paid Rs.94,419/ CIC/SA/C/2014/000440 & 000453 Page 2 wrongly during relevant year and the complainant received the payment without pointing out to the Department that he was not entitled for the same and when the PAO detected it, they tried to recover the same, but the complainant has already retired by the time it was detected. Hence, they carried over the recovery to the next financial year, on which the complainant has gone to the court, and the said recovery of Rs.94,419/ is pending for court decision. The respondent officer further submitted that the claim of the complainant that he was made to pay excess income tax is false, as he did not pay any income tax on the same and even if it was paid by him, one can always claim refund of the same from the Income Tax Dept by filing the revised incometax return for the relevant assessment year, as per the incometax rules. The Commission having accepted the submissions of the Public Authority, dismisses the complaint.
CIC/SA/C/2014/000453
5. The complainant submitted that he has not got the 'no demand certificate' from the respondent authority for construction of the flat. In reply to this, the respondent officer Mr. AK Pathak explained to the Commission that the complainant does not need certificate from them, but it is actually the CPWD/Directorate of Estates, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi who have to issues to him, as they are the competent authority to give permission to the complainant to construct the flat. The respondent authority, i.e. Botanical Survey of India, is only concerned with the technical clearance to be given to the CPWD, who was in correspondence with the respondent authority directly. Therefore, the CPIO told the complainant that they will send the technical clearance directly to CPWD from whom he can get the no demand certificate for going ahead with his flat construction. But as the complainant insisted that the said technical clearance to be directly given to him, the CPIO instructed his APIO at Pune to do the needful and the same has been complied with.
6. The Commission having heard the submissions, notices that the complainant has been furnished with all the required information, but he is proceeding with this complaint for nothing.
CIC/SA/C/2014/000440 & 000453 Page 3 Therefore, the Commission dismisses this complaint and warns the complaint not to misuse the RTI Act.
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Government of India, Min. of Environment & Forests Botanical Survey of India, CGO Complex, 3rd MSO Buldg, 64/DF Block Sector1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata700064
2. Shri Jeewan Kumar, C/o Sh.Hanumant K Padekar, E19, Rameshwar Raj Park, Moraya Raj Park Phase, Chinchwad, Pune411033 (Maharashtra) CIC/SA/C/2014/000440 & 000453 Page 4