Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Pr.Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 26 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos. : CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625266, CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625255,
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/623581, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/624221/CCITP,
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/624222, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/624224,
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625270, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625254,
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625259, CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625260,
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625261, CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625097,
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625098, CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625086,
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625088, CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625092,
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625094, CIC/CCITP/C/2023/633094,
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/634162. (Total 19 cases)
RADHA RAMNA TRIPATHY ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Income Tax Officer, Ward -
5, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhinge
Building, Miraj Road, Opp.
Z.P., Sangli - 416416.
CPIO
Office of the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Aaykar Bhawan, 341/2/2, South
Shivaji Nagar, Sangli - 414416.
CPIO
Income Tax Office, Ward - 2,
Aayakar Bhawan, Bhinge
Building, Miraj Road, Opp.
Z.P., Sangli - 416416.
Page 1 of 31
CPIO
Income Tax Office, Ward - 3,
Aayakar Bhawan, Bhinge
Building, Miraj Road, Opp.
Z.P., Sangli - 416416
CPIO
Income Tax Officer, Ward -1,
Aayakar Bhawan, Bhinge
Building, Miraj Road, Opp.
Z.P., Sangli - 416416 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 14.06.2024
Date of Decision : 26.06.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant
and the Respondent Public Authority are common and subject-matter is
similar in nature and hence are being heard together and disposed of
through a common order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.09.2022, 29.05.2022
CPIO replied on : 05.06.2024, 10.06.2024, 18.06.2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.05.2023, 08.05.2023
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625266
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04.Page 2 of 31
However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd- 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173. Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests. Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 05-06-2024 stating as under:
"NIL, there is no assesse who were not an assessee in default but amount were recovered from there Bank accounts during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect this Ward-5, Sangli."
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625255 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT. Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.Page 3 of 31
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs 5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd- 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/623581 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.Page 4 of 31
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, PUNE.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/624221/CCITP Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the AddI. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.Page 5 of 31
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Pune."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/624222 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.Page 6 of 31
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Pune."
The reply to the information sought as per the data pertaining to this jurisdiction is as under:
No such case in this ward/section.
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/624224 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the AddI. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.Page 7 of 31
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Pune."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 05.06.2024 stating as under:
"There is no such case in this office wherein the first page of the order sheet is written in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (i.e. CCIT), Pune the AY 2003-04. Hence, the information is Nil, as answer to the RTI of the applicant."
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625270 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs. One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.Page 8 of 31
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd- 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625254 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs. One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd- 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.Page 9 of 31
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625259 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH) (PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd- 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.Page 10 of 31
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625260 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd- 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03- 2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."Page 11 of 31
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625261 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd- 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625097 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:Page 12 of 31
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd- 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625098 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.Page 13 of 31
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs. One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd- 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625086 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.Page 14 of 31
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd- 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625088 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs. One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd- 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.Page 15 of 31
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625092 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd- 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.Page 16 of 31
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 10.06.2024 stating as under:
"NIL, there is no assessee who were not an assessee in default but amount were recovered from there Bank accounts during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect this Ward-5, Sangli."
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625094 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs. One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd- 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.Page 17 of 31
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03- 2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/633094 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, PUNE.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."Page 18 of 31
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 18-06-2024 stating as under:
"There is no provision to give copy of order sheet to the assessee. It is a departmental document. However, as per the RTI filed by the applicant, there is no such case in this office wherein the first page of the order sheet not given to the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04. Hence, the information called for by the applicant in respect of this office is Nil."
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/634162 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.Page 19 of 31
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Pune."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 18-06-2024 stating as under:
"There is no provision to give copy of order sheet to the assessee. It is a departmental document. However, as per the RTI filed by the applicant, there is no such case in this office wherein the first page of the order sheet not given to the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04. Hence, the information called for by the applicant in respect of this office is Nil."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Satish Lingam, ITO & CPIO, Shri Laxmi Kant Garud, ITO & CPIO and Shri Ajay R Pawar, ITO & CPIO present through Video-Conference.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing despite notice.
Cases have been listed together as stated in the opening statement of this order. The Complainant may note that the timing indicated in the cause list is primarily for the purpose of informing the parties as also the NIC studio for booking the same. Hearings are done every day till all cases are heard. The break in hearing can be taken with mutual convenience. The Complainant is always welcome to witness disposal of cases after duly hearing the parties either personally or through authorized representative. Instead of calling a senior citizen like him frequently for the bunch of cases filed by him as also with a view not to disrupt the functioning of Respondent CPIO, the cases are heard together for convenience of the parties involved. All cases are only complaint cases in which first appeals are not filed by the Complainant. In complaint cases, the Commission has to only adjudicate whether information was denied/delayed mala fidely.Page 20 of 31
Detailed written submissions of the CPIOs stating complete facts of the case in the above-mentioned matters are taken on record. Since, the contents/subject-matter of all the written submissions received by the Commission are more or less similar in nature because the queries raised in the above-mentioned RTI applications are based on two subject-matters which is being reproduced herein:
"1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
"Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
The Complainant has filed identical RTI applications based on above- mentioned subject-matters even without changing the time-period of the information sought.
Therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of written submissions in the matter, the relevant extracts of some of the written submissions are reproduced hereinbelow:
Written Submission 1:
"I the undersigned Shri. Satish G. Lingam, Income tax Officer, Ward 5, Sangli hereby submit that I have taken over the charge of Income tax Officer, Ward 5,Sangli on 21.06.2023 (FN) on transfer from Kolhapur. I have been performing duties of CPIO, Ward 5,Sangli from 21.06.2023(FN) till date. My office is in receipt of above referred notice of hearing of appeal/complaint in respect of the applicant Shri.R.R.Tripathy who has filed RTI seeking information from this office vide RTI online Registration No. CCITP/R/E/22/00105/72 dtd 20.09.2022.
In this regards it is submitted that, though the name of the authorised officer as CPIO, ITO Ward-5, Sangli is Shri. Vijay M. Sanghavi, the charge of the Ward 5, Sangli was holding by Shri. M.R. Pandit who is retired on 31.05.2023. On going through verification of online RTI records of Income tax Officer, Ward 5, Sangli (i.e. CPIO), it is seen that inadvertently the reply to the above referred RTI online Registration No. CCITP/R/E/22/00105/72 dtd 20.09.2022 is remained to Page 21 of 31 be disposed off in Online RTI Systems. Now, I am giving the information sought by the Applicant which is enclosed herewith. As such, I humbly request to your Honour that the complaint /appeal against this office may please be dropped."
Written Submission 2:
"Sir, my submission on the above subject in connection to the present case is as under:-
The applicant Shri R.R. Tripathi, Thane had filed online RTI application No.CCITP/R/E/22/00055/57 dated 31.05.2022 and vide the said RTI application the following information was called for:-
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge:
1. Number of Scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Pune.
Ans. There is no such case in this office wherein the first page of the order sheet is written in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (i.e. CCIT), Pune the AY 2003-04. Hence, the information is Nil, as answer to the RTI of the applicant.
The reason for non-submission of reply is submitted as under:-
It is submitted to your honour that on 31.05.2022 the then Income Tax Officer, Shri Ajay Pawar was holding the additional charge of Income Tax Office, Ward- 3, Sangli as on 31.05.2022 i.e. on the date of RTI filed by the applicant. The said RTI application was needed to be disposed of on or before 30.06.2022. But on my transfer to Sangli, I had taken over the charge of Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3, Sangli on 13.06.2022. It is necessary to mention here that the RTI application was not disposed by me and also by my predecessor before due date for this humble cause, we both very sincerely pray for excuse. I feel it very necessary to bring to your kind notice and perusal that the same applicant has applied for almost similar information in the same case vide his 10 other different applications. I pray and respectfully submit that all these 10 RTI applications filed by the applicant Shri R.R. Tripathy, were disposed of by the undersigned within the time frame. (Copy of all these applications are attached herewith for Page 22 of 31 your honour's kind perusal.) But this particular application remained to be disposed of which was totally unintentional and perhaps because of work pressure of other important departmental work. I once again pray for excuse in delay caused to dispose the above RTI application which contains 'Nil' information as per this office records.
Further, I find it equally important to bring a technical issue faced by the undersigned to your kind notice. As on the date when I joined in this office, no password & ID of the online RTI was available. The same was activated by sending letter to PRO on 07.07.2022. (copy of the email is enclosed for kind perusal)."
Written Submission 3:
Kind reference is invited on the above subject.
2. Sir, my submission on the above subject in connection to the present case is as under:-
3. The applicant Shri R.R. Tripathi, Thane had filed online RTI application No.CCITP/R/E/22/00054/26 dated 29.05.2022 and vide the said RTI application the following information was called for:-
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge, Pune.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today.
Ans. There is no provision to give copy of order sheet to the assessee. It is a departmental document. However, as per the RTI filed by the applicant, there is no such case in this office wherein the first page of the order sheet not given to the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04. Hence, the information called for by the applicant in respect of this office is Nil.
The reason for non-submission of reply is submitted as under:- It is submitted to your honour that on 29.05.2022 the then Income Tax Officer, Shri Ajay Pawar was holding the additional charge of Income Tax Office, Ward-3, Sangli as on 29.05.2022 i.e. on the date of RTI filed by the applicant. The said RTI application was needed to be disposed of on or before 27.06.2022. But on my Page 23 of 31 transfer to Sangli, I had taken over the charge of Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Sangli on 13.06.2022. It is necessary to mention here that the RTI application was not disposed by me and also by my predecessor before due date for this humble cause, we both very sincerely pray for excuse. I feel it very necessary to bring to your kind notice and perusal that the same applicant has applied for almost similar information in the same case vide his 10 other different applications. I pray and respectfully submit that all these 10 RTI applications filed by the applicant Shri R.R. Tripathy, were disposed of by the undersigned within the time frame. But this particular application remained to be disposed of which was totally unintentional and perhaps because of work pressure of other important departmental work. I once again pray for excuse in delay caused to dispose the above RTI application which contains 'Nil' information as per this office records. The said RTI application has been disposed of on 10.06.2024.
4. Further, I find it equally important to bring a technical issue faced by the undersigned to your kind notice. As on the date when I joined in this office, no password & ID of the online RTI was available. The same was activated by sending letter to PRO on 07.07.2022. (Copy of the email is enclosed for kind perusal).
5. Further, it is humbly stated that in the notice of hearing of Hon'ble Central Information Commission dated 29.05.2024, the name of CPIO is wrongly written as THE CPIO, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 341/2/2, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli instead of Ajay R Pawar, Income- tax Officer, Ward-3, Sangli as written in complaint by the applicant. Hence, the CPIO may kindly be treated as Income-tax Officer, Ward-3, Sangli.
6. Hence, we pray to your honour to kindly drop the above proceedings".
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission observes that identical issues of the Complainant have already been heard on 17.05.2024 and decided on 21.05.2024, by the Commission in Complaint file Nos.
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626734 & ors. of the same Public Authority of different Page 24 of 31 office. Relevant observations of the Commission in the said decisions are reproduced hereinbelow:
"xxxxxxxx The Commission further observes that the Complainant has not filed any First Appeal or Second Appeal in the above-mentioned cases as also in all cases adjudicated by this bench so far, and reasons for the same could not be ascertained as he was not present before the Commission despite notice. In a Complaint case, the Commission cannot give any relief for information under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only restricted role lies is to adjudicate whether the information has been malafidely denied by the CPIO or undue hindrance has been caused by the Respondent. It is noteworthy that the Complainant was not present before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondents and further agitate the matter.
The Commission is not inclined to accept the prayer of the Complainant to impose penalty as well as for recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned CPIOs in the absence of any mala fide on part of the Respondent. The conduct of the Complainant shows his intention to pressurize the CPIO with the fear of penal action than actual delivery of information to him.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1900 cases of the same Complainant against same and different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that a total number of 100 complaints cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing and the same have been heard together simultaneously. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications with minor changes apparently to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It Page 25 of 31 appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
xxxxxxxxxx Regarding imposition of penalty to the CPIO/PIO under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs. WP(C) 3114/2007 vide order dated 03.12.2007 held that:
"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 4 information officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of the information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in 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....."
Emphasis supplied Furthermore, the 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. ......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." In view of the above, the Commission finds that there is no mala fide on part of the respondent while replying to the RTI application. That being so, and in the absence of any merit in the complaint, the same is liable to be dismissed.Page 26 of 31
The Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1200 cases of the same Complainant against same/another Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Complaints listed for today's hearing have been heard together along with other 74 matters of the Complainant simultaneously and the Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the time span of information sought in each of his RTI Applications apparently to pressurize the public authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
It appears that the Complainant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter-productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para
11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Page 27 of 31 Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious and repetitive litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....."
Emphasis supplied The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar observations:
"....... This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...37. ............................ 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 Page 28 of 31 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% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties..."
Emphasis supplied In view of this, the Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated. Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated. The Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter. "
The Complainant has not been judicious in the use of RTI Act and has been using it as a tool to harass the Public Authority. The Complainant is therefore cautioned to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner."
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the Complainant as he is not abiding by the repetitive advice of the Commission and filing repetitive similar RTI Applications which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a Page 29 of 31 judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide. The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
In view of the above, the issue having attained finality on the principles of res- judicata may not be opened again. Moreover, the Complainant did not appear before the Commission despite service of notice to contest his cases. Written submissions filed by the Respondent are taken on record. The Respondents, during the hearing, submitted that copies of the detailed written submissions filed before the Commission have already been shared with the Complainant. However, as per the record placed before the Commission, no proof was given by the Respondents to support their claim about service of written submissions/reply to the Complainant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Respondents are advised to share copies of written submissions given in respective files (if not given earlier) to the Complainant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission further observes that there is a substantial delay in providing replies to the Complainant on the above-mentioned RTI applications. In this regard, the Respondent, during the hearing, informed the bench that due to some technical reasons owing to merging and restructuring thrice that has already been submitted in previous cases by Respondent Public Authority, the above-mentioned RTI applications were not attended within the mandated period. The Respondents apologized for the same and assured that such lapses would not recur in future, therefore, the Commission finds no mala fide on part of the CPIOs.
Page 30 of 31Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 2100 cases of the same Complainant against same and different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that a total number of 100 complaints cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing and the same have been heard together simultaneously. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
The Commission, like on several occasions in the past, again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future.
With these observations, the instant Complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 31 of 31 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)