Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 20 January, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684005
CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684007
CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684008
CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684011
CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684014
RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro,
RTI Cell, Office of Pr. Commissioner of
Income-tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Rabindra Path
Hazaribagh-825301, Jharkhand. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/12/2022
Date of Decision : 17/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The abovementioned Complaints have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from complaint (s):
Complaint RTI CPIO reply First Appeal FAA's order Complaint
no. Application dated
dated
684005 12/03/2020 30/03/2020 Not on Not on 01/09/2020
record. record
684007 12/03/2020 30/03/2020 Not on Not on 01/09/2020
record. record
1
684008 12/03/2020 30/03/2020 Not on Not on 01/09/2020
record. record
684011 12/03/2020 30/03/2020 Not on Not on 01/09/2020
record. record
684014 12/03/2020 30/03/2020 Not on Not on 01/09/2020
record. record
CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684005
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2020 seeking information in respect of DCIT-3, Bokaro; including inter alia;
"...Total number of cases in which interest u/s 220 of the Income Tax Act have been charged during the month of February, 2020...."
The CPIO provided an interim reply to the complainant on 30.03.2020 stating as under:
"Due to Lockdown in context to the CORONA Virus, at present, the CPIO is unable to furnish the information."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684007 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2020 seeking the following information in respect of DCIT-3, Bokaro:
"Total number of cases in which interest u/s 244 of the Income Tax Act have been granted during the month of February, 2020."
The CPIO furnished an interim reply to the complainant on 30.03.2020 stating as under:-
"Due to lockdown in context to the CORONA Virus, at present, the CPIO is unable to furnish the information."2
CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684008 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2020 seeking information in respect of DCIT-3, Bokaro, including inter alia the following:
"1 Total Arrear demand pending as on 01.02.2020.
2.Total tax collected during the month of February, 2020."
The CPIO furnished an interim reply to the complainant on 30.03.2020 stating as under:-
"Due to Lockdown in context to the CORONA Virus, at present, the CPIO is unable to furnish the information."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684011 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.03.2020 seeking the following information in respect of DCIT-3, Bokaro:
"Number of Personal telephonic calls made by the DCIT from his official phone during the month of February, 2020."
The CPIO a replied to the complainant on 24.04.2020 by stating that the No such data are maintained by this office.
CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684014 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.03.2020 seeking the following information in respect on DCIT-3, Bokaro:
"Number of Seminars conducted in view of orders of Hon. CICI during the month of February, 2020."
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 24.04.2020 by stating as under:-
"No formal but internal seminars are often conducted on the regular basis."3
Being dissatisfied, the complainant directly approached the Commission with the instant set of Complaint (s) on the grounds that the CPIO has denied the information on false and baseless grounds and that he has malafide intention to deny the information. Further, the Complainant prayed to the Commission that Penalty/Fine may kindly be imposed on the CPIO as also disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Deepak kumar, ITO Ward 3 (1) & CPIO, CCIT Bokaro present through video-conference.
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 26.12.2022, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below for ready reference
-
In case no. CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684005 -
" ...1.3.2 The other compliance after opening of office after lockdown on the issue regarding furnishing of information during lockdown period was made vide point no. 15 on page no. 5 of part-A of compliance submitted against RTI Registration No. CCAPT/R/E/00944 dated 20.O8.2020 was NIL..."
In case no. CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684007 -
".....It Is worthwhile to mention that the all the CPIOs of Income tax Department, Bihar and Jharkhand, have been accustomed to provide the information against the thousands of frivolous RTI petitions (devoid of larger public interest) filed by Sri R.R. Tripathy. It is on record that, the DCIT cum CPI0, Circle-3(1), Bokaro, too has been providing the information to the information seeker within the limitation period. The specific information regarding rest of the RTI petitions might also have been furnished, had the nationwide lockdown circumstances not prevented the CPIO from furnishing the exact and specific information. Hence, it is unjustified to claim that the CPIO willfully did not furnish the information requested for.
xxx As regards; the sought for information regarding the total number of cases in which interest u/s 244 of the Income Tax Act have been granted during the 4 month of February 2020, the information seeker, vide the compliance dated 20.08.2020, was allowed to inspect the computer system/dispatch register of this office but he failed to avail of the opportunity. Such repeated and frivolous RTI petitions devoid of larger public interest are not required to be even entertained by the CPIO.
f. In view of the provision u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005; regarding the definition of the Information and the provision u/s 20) of-the RT1 Act, 2005, regarding the definition of the right, to Information the ground of appeal that the CPIO has not applied his mind and has given absurd and ridiculous reply is baseless as, as per the relevant legal provisions, the CPIO was not suo-moto bound to furnish the reply against the sought for information after the lockdown period, but still, being the staunch supporter of right to freedom of the citizen, the CPIO preferred to furnish the sought for information to the information seeker.
g. It is ironical to observe that, Sri R.R. Tripathy, went on routine practice of filing of absurd and frivolous RTI. petitions (devoid of larger public interest) even during the nationwide lockdown period. In the light of the above inevitable facts, it is crystal clear that the CPIO has duly applied his mind and has given best possible reply in the then given inevitable circumstances.
h. By giving the advice that the CPIO mild have replied after the expiry of lockdown period, he intends to advice that his RTI petition should have remained non complied within the limitation period so that the penalty proceeding as per the provision under RTI Act, 2005 could have been initiated against the CPIO....."
In case no. CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684008-
"...3.3.1 The original compliance dated 24.04.2020 against the RTI application registration no CCAPT/R/E/20/00427 dated 29.03.2020 was that, "no such records are maintained in this office....
Xxx 3.5Specific counter comments of CPIO against the grounds of complaint:
As an Advocate, his mercenary interest is that the Income-tax Authorities not only should not take any adverse action against his clients but should also remain subdued before his sweet desire. Hence, on one hand, he went on frequent filing of baseless and frivolous allegations and complaints before the hon'ble President of India, Prime Minister of India, Finance Minister, Finance Secretary, Revenue Secretary, CBDT Chairman, Pr. CCIT, Patna; CCIT, Ranchi etc against only action- oriented, dynamic Income-tax Authorities and on the other hand started harassing 5 such Income-tax Authorities through bombardment of more than 4000 frivolous and repeated RTI applications ( devoid of any larger public interest) before the CPIOs and 800 Appeals/ Complaints before the CIC against the few selected CPIOs.
In an attempt to over-pressurize the CPIOs; Sri R.R. Tripathy has been filing exactly the same repeated RTI applications. Indiscriminate and impractical demands for the disclosures of and sundry information, which are not intended to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, by misusing the RTI Act as a tool for mischief, abuse and personal vendetta of a disgruntled employee, against the organization, with the malicious intention to cause oppression, intimidation and harassment of the public authority by filing multiple/ repeated/ vexatious/ useless/ obnoxious RTI applications, which are devoid of public interest but for the soul private purpose of promoting personal interest on the pretext of serving the public cause, leading to criminal wastage of resources of the public authority; are prohibited under the rules relating to the RTI Act and hence, such applications, not only do not deserve to be entertained by the public authority but even disciplinary action and other suitable legal actions are needed to be enforced against such misuse of RTI Act..."
In case no. CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684011-
"... 4.3.1. The original compliance dated 24.04.2020, against the RTI application registration no. CCAPT/R/E/20/00429 dated 29.03.2020 was that non formal but internal seminars are often conducted on the regular basis..."
In case no. CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/684014-
"...5.3.1 No such records are maintained by this office.
Neither under any section of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 nor under lncome Tax Rules, 1952 or office procedure Manual, the Assessing officer is required to maintain records of letters issued under original signature and hence no such records are maintained by assessing officer' Hence the information given was correct. when the information is not available with the CPlO, there is no question of tendering such information as sought for..."
Decision At the outset, the Commission observes from a perusal of records that a bunch of Complaints (s) bearing File no. CIC/CCAPT/C/2020/668839 & others of the same 6 Complainant against same/another public authority have already been heard and disposed off by this bench on 30.12.2021, 26.08.2022, 25.11.2022 & 27.12.2022. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Complaints listed for today's hearing have been heard together along with 32 more mattes of the Complainant simultaneously and the Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same/similar nature of information sought by merely expanding the time span of information sought in each of his RTI Applications merely to pressurize the public authority into acceding to his request for similar nature of information. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% 7 of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing, the Complainant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
Nonetheless, the factual replies furnished by the then CPIO with their appreciable efforts to facilitate relevant information to the Complainant is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question. Moreover, at this stage the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of the Complainant for initiating penal action against the CPIO in the absence of any malafide ascribed on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
"...61. 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 show cause 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...."
Additionally, 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 8 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 Hon'ble 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.
xxx ......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 notes that Hon'ble 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."
Having observed as above and considering the inability of the Complainant in substantiating his level of dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply in the instant Complaints, no further action is warranted in the instant matters.
The Complaint (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) 9 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 10