Central Information Commission
Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 16 December, 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.(s):- CIC/DGITH/A/2018/621308-BJ+
CIC/CBODT/A/2018/621332-BJ
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Directorate General of Income Tax (HRD)
Central Board of Direct Taxes
2nd Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium
Pragati Vihar, New Delhi- 110003
2. CPIO
Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue
Central Board of Direct Taxes
North Block, New Delhi-110001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.12.2019
Date of Decision : 16.12.2019
ORDER
RTI - I File No. CIC/DGITH/A/2018/621308-BJ Date of RTI application 08.03.2018 CPIO's response 13.03.2018 Date of the First Appeal Nil First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 5 points namely the information u/s 4(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 available with CBDT/Income Tax Department, efforts and resources undertaken by CBDT/Income Tax Department to comply with the same since 2005, if Page 1 of 1 the obligation has not been complied until now with a delay of 12 years, designation of such officers and their complete address and inspection of records as referred to in the previous points and their copies, etc. Subsequent to several transfers, the queries were answered by Director General of Income Tax (HRD), New Delhi, vide reply dated 05.04.2018, stating that the information asked by the applicant was in nature of query and clarification, therefore, outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI - II File No. CIC/CBODT/A/2018/621332-BJ Date of RTI application 08.03.2018 CPIO's response 13.03.2018 Date of the First Appeal 06.04.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 5 points namely the information u/s 4(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 available with CBDT/Income Tax Department, efforts and resources undertaken by CBDT/Income Tax Department to comply with the same since 2005, if the obligation has not been complied until now with a delay of 12 years, designation of such officers with their complete address and inspection of records as referred to in the previous points and their copies, etc. Subsequent to several transfers, the queries were answered by Director General of Income Tax (HRD), New Delhi, vide reply dated 05.04.2018, stating that the information asked by the applicant was in nature of query and clarification, therefore, outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta;
Respondent: Mr. B. S. Rajora, CPIO & ITO (PMD), O/o Pr. DGIT (HRD);
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and stated that the information sought was not provided to him. It was further submitted that he was seeking information pertaining to compliance of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 which was not responded satisfactorily. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant wherein he referred to Sec 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. A reference was also made to the decision of the Hon'ble SC in Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. V. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and Ors. Order dated 09 Aug, 2011 and the decision of Hon'ble High Court in Bhagat Singh v. Chief Commissioner and Ors., 146 (2008) DLT 385 as also the decision of the Commission in Er. Sarabjit Roy Vs Delhi Development Authority dated 25/02/2006 Appeal No. 10/1/2005-CIC in support of his contention. In its reply, Page 2 of 2 the Respondent submitted that the desired information was available in the public domain which was contested by the Appellant stating that the updated details were not available on the website. The Appellant further suggested that monthly updates should be available on the website in compliance to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was noted by the Commission that the Respondent had dealt with the matter casually and generic details were not provided to the Appellant. The Respondent however agreed to furnish an updated response within a period of 10 days.
In this context, the Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007) (Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:
7."it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken".
The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act." Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
Moreover, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed that ".....The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Page 3 of 3The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at."
The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who have to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"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."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the Page 4 of 4 internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Sayyed Education Society v. State of Maharashtra, WP 1305/2011 dated 12.02.2014 had held that public authorities are under a statutory obligation to maintain records and disseminate as per the provisions of the Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court in this respect, held as under:
"Needless to state that as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 14 in the case of CBSE and Another (supra), Public Authorities are under an obligation to maintain records and disseminate the information in the manner provided under Section 4 of the RTI act. The submission of the petitioner that it is an onerous task to supply documents, therefore is required to be rejected. The Law mandates preserving of documents, supplying copies thereof to the applicant, in our view, cannot be said to be an onerous task."
Above all the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under:
Page 5 of 5"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
Furthermore, in this context a reference was also made to the OM no. No.1/6/2011-IR dated 15.04.2013 issued by the DoP&T pertaining to guidelines for the implementation of suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish an updated status in respect of the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order, as agreed.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeals stand 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: 16.12.2019 Copy to:
1. Chairman, CBDT, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi -
110001 Page 6 of 6