Central Information Commission
Raghuveer Prasad Meena vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 26 November, 2018
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/CCITJ/A/2017/158197-BJ
Mr. Raghuveer Prasad Meena
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
ITO (HQ)
Office of the Pr. CIT
Central Revenue Building
Near C.A.D. Circle
Kota - 324007
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.11.2018
Date of Decision : 26.11.2018
Date of RTI application 15.06.2017
CPIO's response 07.07.2017
Date of the First Appeal 24.07.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 26.07.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 23.08.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the certified copy of the letter written to the Vigilance Mumbai by Pr. CIT, Kota, certified copy of any correspondence made from the O/o the Pr. CIT, Jaipur, Rajasthan and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 07.07.2017 denied disclosure of information as per Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 26.07.2017 while concurring with the response of the CPIO on points 01 to 03 of the RTI application denied disclosure of information as per Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the aforementioned points. As regards point no. 04, it was stated that the query was hypothetical in nature which did not fall within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 1 of 4
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Raghuveer Prasad Meena (ACIT, Udaipur) through VC; Respondent: Mr. K. C. Jain, ITO through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the Respondent erred while claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 since no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him as on date. It was also alleged that he learnt that some letters were exchanged with higher authorities in connection with his disciplinary proceedings and that he desired to know the details. On a query from the Commission about the source of this information, he claimed that some of his colleagues shared this information with him. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that Vigilance Proceedings were pending against the Appellant before the Directorate of Vigilance, Mumbai. On being queried if the Charge Sheet was issued as on date, the Respondent informed that the matter was under consideration at present and no further information was available with them. To a query from the Commission, if he had filed an RTI application before the Directorate of Vigilance, Mumbai, the Appellant replied in the affirmative.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 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 and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), 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."Page 2 of 4
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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen Page 3 of 4 makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." Furthermore, the Commission in the decision of K.S. Prasad vs SEBI CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234 had held as under:
"...as soon as an investigation or an enquiry by a subordinate Enquiry Officer in Civil and Administrative matters comes to an end and, the investigation report is submitted to a higher authority, it cannot be said to be the end of investigation. ... which can be truly said to be concluded only with the decision by the competent authority."
In this context a reference can be made to the decision of the bench of the Commission in Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal v. SEBI CIC/SM/A/2012/000196 dated 28.11.2014 wherein it was held as under:
"15. In the present case, final orders are yet to be passed by the competent authority under the SEBI Act. Therefore, the process of investigation against the RIL is still pending before SEBI and it cannot be said the same has reached its conclusion. Hence, the requested information falls under exemption under section 8(1) (h) of the Act.
16. The Commission recognizes the perspective brought out on public interest in the course of the hearing. The appellant had underlined emphatically the dimensions of public interest overriding the protected interest, i.e. the protection given to the 'fiduciary' elements. However, the other side argued that the appellant is overstating the public interest without taking into account that the investigation is still going on. We have, therefore, to await the completion of this investigation. It will not be wise for the Commission to speculate as to what conclusions the SEBI will draw."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
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: 26.11.2018
Page 4 of 4