Central Information Commission
Anil Pannikker vs Director General Of Income Tax (Admn.) ... on 26 June, 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.:- CIC/DGITA/A/2018/109086-BJ
Mr. Anil Pannikker
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
ITO (HQ) (Exemption), Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemp.)
E - 2 Block, 25th Floor, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre
New Delhi - 110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.06.2019
Date of Decision : 26.06.2019
Date of RTI application 29.09.2017
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 30.10.2017
(mentioned in 2nd
Appeal)
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.02.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the order of the Appellate Authority in compliance with the decision of the Commission in CIC/AT/A/2008/00170 dated 30.06.2008.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ 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: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. K. N. Jha, ITO (HQ) - I;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Sahil, Network Engineer NIC studio at Hisar confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent stated that the instant RTI application/ First Appeal was not received by them. Subsequent to the receipt of the Second Appeal, they had sent a Page 1 of 4 reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 22.02.2018 under intimation to the Commission. However, on the same issue they had received another RTI application/ First Appeal from one Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta. Since the information sought pertained to Mumbai Region, the application was transferred to the JCIT and FAA, O/o the CIT (E) Mumbai in response to which the JCIT, R-1 and FAA, Mumbai vide letter dated 02.04.2019 sought the recent address and mobile number of Shri J.K. Sachdeva so as to give a hearing opportunity as per the order of the CIC. The copy of the letter was also sent to Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta to provide the address/ mobile number of Sh. J.K. Sachdeva but no reply had been received so far.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 25.06.2019 wherein it was stated that the online RTI application and First Appeal dated 29.09.2017 and 30.10.2017 respectively were not received in the O/o CCIT (E), Delhi due to restructuring in the department. The Second Appeal dated 09.02.2018 filed by the Applicant was forwarded by the O/o the DGIT (Admin and TPS) Delhi and received in their office on 19.02.2018 subsequent to which they had sent a reply to the Appellant dated 22.02.2018 under intimation to the Commission.
However, on the same issue Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta, Hissar had also filed RTI dated 29.12.2018 and First Appeal dated 12.02.2019 along with the CIC order dated 30.06.2008. Further, the original RTI application dated 19.02.2008 was more than 10 years old and was not available in their office. The said case pertained to CIT (E) Mumbai. The RTI dated 29.12.2018 was transferred to the JCIT and FAA, O/o the CIT (E), Mumbai. In response to the above, the JCIT, R-1 and FAA, Mumbai vide letter dated 02.04.2019 sought recent address and mobile number of Shri J.K. Sachdeva so as to give a hearing opportunity as per the order of the CIC. The copy of the letter was also sent to Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta to provide the address/ mobile number of Sh. J.K. Sachdeva but no reply had been received so far.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."Page 2 of 4
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission instructs the Respondent to provide the updated status of the action taken in the matter to the Appellant alongwith a copy of the written submission furnished to the Commission within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also advises the JCIT , R-1 and FAA, Mumbai to ensure that the order of the Commission referred in the RTI application is expeditiously complied with.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 26.06.2019
Page 3 of 4
Copy to:
1. JCIT, R-1 and FAA, O/o the CIT (E), Mumbai, Room No. 505, 5th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, Mumbai- 400012 Page 4 of 4