Central Information Commission
Mangesh Joshi vs Pr.Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 13 December, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCITP/A/2020/689024 +
CIC/CCITP/C/2020/693889 +
CIC/CCITP/A/2020/689318+
CIC/CCITP/A/2020/695440
Mangesh Joshi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
1. Office of the Addl.
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range. 1 & 2, Solapur, RTI Cell,
Aayakar Bhavan, Hotgi Road,
Solapur-413003, Maharashtra.
2. O/o Assistant Commissioner
Of Income Tax, Circle-I, Solapur,
RTI Cell, Aayakar Bhavan, 1st Floor,
Hotagi Road, Solapur-413003,
Maharashtra.
3. O/o Income Tax Officer,
Ward-2(1), Solapur, Unity Arcade,
3rd Floor, Room No. 202, Opp. Sanchar
Press, Ayakar Bhavan, Hotagi Road,
Solapur-413003, Maharashtra
1
4. O/o Income Tax Officer,
Ward-1(1), Hyderabad, RTI Cell,
Room No. 722, B-Block, 7th Floor,
Income Tax Towers, A.C. Guards,
Masabtank, Hyderabad-500004,
Telangana
5. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3,
Satara, RTI Cell, B.O. Bhavan,
Bibwewadi Corner, Parvathi,
Pune-411009, Maharashtra .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 12/12/2022
Date of Decision : 12/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeal(s)/Complaint(s) have been clubbed for
decision as these are based on the same RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal/complaint:
RTI application(s) filed on : 04/12/2018
CPIO replied on : 26/08/2018 & 28/10/2020 & 23/09/2020
First appeal(s) filed on : 21/08/2020 & 07/09/2020 & 21/10/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record & 06/10/2020 &
20/11/2020
2nd Appeal(s)/Complaint dated : 13/10/2020 & 08/12/2020 & 21/11/2020
CIC/CCITP/A/2020/689024+
CIC/CCITP/C/2020/693889+
CIC/CCITP/A/2020/689318+
CIC/CCITP/A/2020/695440
Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 04.12.2018 seeking the following information:2
In case no. CIC/CCITP/A/2020/689024 -
The CPIO/ Respondent no. 3 herein furnished a reply to the appellant on 26.08.2020 against points No. 2, 3(a), (b), (c), (d) & (e) of the RTI application while in response to point No. 1, the CPIO denied information to the Appellant under section 8(1) (e) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.08.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
In case no. CIC/CCITP/C/2020/693889- 3 The CPIO/ Respondent no. 4 transferred the RTI application on 28.10.2020 to the CPIO/ Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Pune/ Respondent no. 5 herein for providing information directly to the complainant and also stated as under:-
4. "PAN migration is being initiated through the O/o Pr. CIT, Range-1, Hyderabad. You are requested to own up the PAN."
In case no. CIC/CCITP/A/2020/689318 -
The CPIO transferred the RTI application on 27.08.2020 to the CPIO/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Solapur i.e. Respondent no. 2 herein for providing information to the appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.09.2020. FAA's order dated 06.10.2020 denied information under section 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In case no. CIC/CCITP/A/2020/695440 -
The CPIO transferred the RTI application on 27.08.2020 to the CPIO/ Income Tax Officer, Ward2(1)/ Respondent no. 2, Solapur for providing information to the appellant.
Subsequently, CPIO/ Income Tax Officer, Ward2(1) / Respondent no. 2, Solapur denied information to the appellant on 23.09.2020 under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.10.2020. FAA's order dated 20.11.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Not present.4
Respondent no. 1: Represented by Akhilesh Srivastava, JCIT & CPIO present through video-conference.
Respondent no. 2: Represented by Neetika Verma, DCIT & ACIT & CPIO present through video-conference.
Respondent no. 3: Represented by J M Shaikh, ITO Ward 2(1) & CPIO present through video-conference.
Respondent no. 4: Represented by B Anitha, ITO Ward 1(1) & CPIO present through video-conference.
Respondent no. 5: Represented by B A Sayed, ITO, International Taxation -3 & CPIO present through video-conference.
In case no. CIC/CCITP/A/2020/689024 -
The Respondent no. 1 while relying on his written submission dated 08.12.2022 submitted that the same RTI Application had already been heard and disposed off by the coordinate bench of the Commission vide Complaint file no. CIC/CCITP/C/2019/600306 on 14.08.2020 wherein the then CPIO had already been penalized by the Commission with the following observations-
" ....1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, O/o the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Hotagi Road, Solapur, Maharashtra. The complainant seeking information on three points, including, inter-alia-
(i) Action taken till date on the application dated 21.10.2015 addressed to the Jt. CIT, Solapur in respect of Prabhakar Joshi and others;
(ii) Copy of his RTI application dated 01.08.2016, etc.
2. Being aggrieved with the reply given by the respondent, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The complainant was not present despite notice. The respondent, Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
54. The complainant submitted his written submissions dated 07.08.2020 and the same has been taken on record. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 06.08.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that the online response to the RTI application of the complainant has been given by them on 07.01.2020. He submitted that there is an inadvertent delay in providing information because the RTI application dated 04.12.2018 was filed online on RTI MIS portal. However, as usage of RTI MIS portal was not very common in 2018, the RTI MIS portal was not being monitored.
However, all RTI applications which were filed manually were attended but online RTI applications were not attended unintentionally. The respondent further submitted that the complainant had filed a similar RTI application manually on 01.08.2016 which was disposed on 07.09.2016 and due to confusion, a reply dated 07.01.2020 was sent informing him that the information has already been given on 07.09.2016.
6. On query from the Commission, the respondent submitted that from the period 04.12.2018 to 05.09.2019 Shri B Y Chavan was the CPIO and from 05.09.2019 to till date Shri Vishwas Mundhe (respondent) is the present CPIO.
Decision:
7. Considering the averments of the respondent and from the perusal of the record, it is very clear on the face of the RTI application that the complainant had sought specific information as enumerated above. However, the CPIO, had provided a vague reply to the complainant on 07.01.2020 that the information has already been provided on 07.09.2016. The Commission has also perused the earlier RTI application of the complainant and observed that the query in both the RTI applications are different.
8. The Commission further observed that firstly, there is a substantial delay of about one year in giving reply to the complainant on his RTI application.
Secondly, the reply given on 07.01.2020 is wrong and not substantial in the eyes of law. This amounts to grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, this also shows lackadaisical approach of the public authority in dealing with the RTI application. The defense taken by the respondent that the RTI MIS portal was not being monitored is not a ground to not to give reply to the RTI applicants.
9. In the above circumstances, levy of penalty is warranted. Therefore, this Commission is constrained to impose a penalty of Rs. 500/- u/Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the then CPIO, Shri B Y Chavan (who is now posted in Pune as Joint Commissioner (International Taxation) and Rs. 100/- (Rupees Hundred Only) 6 on the present CPIO, Shri Vishwas Mundhe who held charge of the RTI application during the relevant period for his casual and callous approach in responding to the RTI application. The amount of Rs. 500/- and Rs, 100/- respectively shall be deducted by the Public Authority from their salary by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi and the demand draft should be forwarded to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067. This demand draft of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 100/- should reach the Commission by 13.09.2020. The present CPIO should ensure service a copy of this order to the then CPIO.
10. This Commission further observes that while examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"30. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.
xxx"
In case no. CIC/CCITP/C/2020/693889- The Commission remarked that the Respondent no. 5 by giving reference of his written submission dated 06.12.2022 apprised the bench that in the instant matter a letter dated 28/10/2020 along with enclosures, was received wrongly by this office on 06/11/2020 from ITO ward 1(1), Hyderabad (i.e. from Respondent no. 4), regarding RTI application filed on line by Shri Mangesh Joshi ,Solapur. ln the letter it was further stated that PAN migration is being initiated and requested to own up the PAN. On verification, it was seen that the letter was wrongly sent 7 to this office instead of lTO, Ward 3, Satara (Respondent no. 5). Therefore, the letter along with its enclosures was returned to the ITO, Ward 1(1), Hyderabad (Respondent no. 4) , on the same day i.e. 06/11/2020 through speed post (copy enclosed), as this office was not having jurisdiction over the same.
Further, the Respondent no. 4 tendered his unconditional apology for delay in reply and attributed the reason for the same due to restricted manpower in terms of MHA guidelines owing to COVID 19 pandemic.
In case no. CIC/CCITP/A/2020/689318 and CIC/CCITP/A/2020/695440- The Respondent no. 2 submitted that the information sought by the Appellant regarding the TEP of above mentioned IPS officers which contains the elements of their personal information is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Thus, the Appellant was replied accordingly.
Decision:
In case no. CIC/CCITP/C/2020/693889- In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission upon perusal of record and after considering the submission of the Respondent no. 1 observes that instant Complaint is a duplicate registration of the Complaint file no. CIC/CCITP/C/2019/600306 which was already heard and disposed off by the coordinate bench on 14.08.2021 with the above mentioned observations. Thus, the instant Complaint is being treated as infructuous.
In cases no. CIC/CCITP/A/2020/689024, CIC/CCITP/A/2020/689318 & CIC/CCITP/A/2020/6695440- The Commission upon perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application(s) arrives at a conclusion that the information sought by the Appellant majorly contains the elements of personal information of third parties , IPS officers which impinges on their privacy and is therefore, directly hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act; to that extent denial of information by the CPIO is in the spirit of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 8 xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
In view of the above and more particularly considering the absence of the Appellant during hearing to plead his case, the Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matter and upholds the reply of the CPIO.
The appeal(s)/complaint are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 9 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स$यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10