Central Information Commission
Vijay Prakash Sharma vs Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... on 9 January, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 305, 3rd Floor, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067, website:cic.gov.in
Appeal No.:- CIC/DGITJ/A/2017/171444-BJ
Appellant : Mr. Vijay Prakash Sharma
Respondent : 1. CPIO & ITO,
O/o ITO, Tonk, Rajasthan,
Kailash Bhawan, Malpura Gate,
Purani Tonk, Tonk (Raj.)
2. CPIO & ITO (Inv.) (HQ.),
O/o The DGIT (Inv.),
Director General of Income Tax (Inv.),
Central Revenue Building,
Statue Circle, Jaipur
3. CPIO & ITO (Hqrs.),
O/o The Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building,
B. D. Road, Jaipur.
4. CPIO & Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range - 7, Jaipur, C-95,
Baba Sidhnath Bhawan, Lal Kothi Scheme,
Jaipur
Date of Hearing : 08.01.2018
Date of Decision : 09.01.2018
Date of filing of RTI application 11.05.2017
CPIO's response 16.06.2017
Date of filing the First appeal 17.06.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 18.07.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 12.10.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on the action taken on his letter dated 15.03.2017, etc. The CPIO, O/o Pr. CCIT, Jaipur vide its letter dated 14.06.2017 transferred the RTI application to the O/o DGIT(Inv.), Jaipur u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act,2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its letter dated 27.06.2017 provided an opportunity of personal hearing on 04.07.2017. In the meanwhile, the CPIO, O/o Pr.DIT(Inv.) transferred the RTI Page 1 of 5 application to the O/o Pr.CIT-03, Jaipur vide letter dated 05.07.2017 which was in turn transferred to the O/o JCIT, Range-007, Jaipur vide letter dated 10.07.2017.
Thereafter, the said RTI application was transferred to the CPIO, Income Tax Office, Tonk vide letter dated 12.07.2017. The FAA vide its order dated 18.07.2017 dismissed the First Appeal with respect to transfer of RTI application from CPIO, O/o Pr. CCIT, Jaipur to O/o DGIT(Inv.), Jaipur vide letter dated 14.06.2017.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Rajendra Jha, ADIT/FAA; Mr. Krishan Yadav, ITO O/o DGIT, Jaipur and Mr. C. P. Sharma, ITO/CPIO, Tonk through VC;
Third Party: Mrs. Gayatri Devi through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent informed that the Appellant had been habitual of filing several RTI applications on similar subject matter that had been dealt with appropriately from time to time. It was also submitted that the FAA had also upheld the response of the CPIO. It was clarified that the Appellant had been filing RTI applications to settle personal scores with the Third Party. Essentially, the matter pertained to a complaint filed by the Appellant who happened to be the first cousin of the Third Party and submitted that the Third party possessed two PAN Cards. The Third Party present at the hearing while substantiating the facts of the case stated that it was a personal property dispute between her and the Appellant that had resulted in large number of RTI applications filed against her. She complained of harassment by the Appellant and wrongly using RTI as a tool to inflict damages on her. On a query from the Commission regarding whether any response had been provided on his TEP, the Respondent at Jaipur submitted that due procedure had been undertaken in accordance with the IT Act,1961 on the TEP filed by the Appellant and the relevant information had been provided to him through a separate medium. However, it was affirmed that no response w.r.t to the said TEP had been provided under the RTI Act, 2005 and the Respondent agreed to provide the same.
It was articulated by the CPIO that similar such matter had been adjudicated by the Commission in Appeal no. CIC/DITIN/A/2016/305936-BJ dated 06.06.2017.
The Appellant vide his written submission dated 27.12.2017 stated that no information had been received by him, till date. He further explained that though his RTI application kept shuttling from one office to another; however no information had been received by him on his complaint filed on 15.03.2017. Therefore, a request was made for imposition of maximum penalty on the CPIO under the provision of the RTI Act, 2005 and a prayer for granting him compensation.
The Respondent vide his written submission dated 03.01.2018 enclosed the copy of the order of FAA, Addl. CIT, Range-07, Jaipur dated 03.01.2018 wherein it was observed that it was not ascertainable as what nature of information was sought by the Appellant in his First Appeal. Moreover, the First Appeal was filed before the DGIT(Inv.), Jaipur who was not the FAA in the instant matter. Therefore, it was not possible to dispose off the First Appeal of the Appellant as due procedure of First Appeal was not followed by the Appellant. Moreover, the FAA in its said order Page 2 of 5 explained the chronological sequence of dealing with the First Appeal in respect of the TEP filed by the Appellant.
The Third Party vide her written submission dated 04.01.2018 explained the Commission regarding the background of the matter leading to the filing of the RTI application by the Appellant. It was submitted that there was a family property dispute between her and the Appellant and that Appellant had been threatening her on her PAN Card dispute consistently. It was also explained that inadvertently she was in possession of 02 PAN cards and the matter had been reported and resolved by the Income Tax Department and the concerning Police Station. However, the Appellant had been approaching different forums for filing a complaint against her and thereby threatening her. It was also explained that she was a School teacher and had no other source of income beside her regular salary. It was informed that the said written submission was in response to the letter of the ACIT/CPIO dated 29.12.2017 enclosing a copy of notice of hearing before the Commission on 08.01.2018.
Hearing both the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action;
thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
7. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:- "8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxxxxxxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not 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 Central Information Commission appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that in order to claim exemption from disclosure of any information, the essential conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) that it is personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or (b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, even if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority may disclose the information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as under:
"Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is enacted Page 3 of 5 that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter of public interest. 11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
This Commission referred to the order dated 18/06/2013 (File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000926 Sh. Ved Prakash Doda v/s ITO) wherein it was held as under:
"6. It has been the stand of the Commission that in respect of a tax evasion petition, once the investigation is completed, the appellant should be informed the broad results of the investigation, without disclosing any details. The appellant has a right to know as to whether the information provided by him was found to be true or false."
However, with regard to the issue raised by the Respondent before the Commission regarding the multiple RTI applications filed by the Appellant on the same subject matter, the Commission took note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information Page 4 of 5 which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION In the light of the facts available on record and the submissions made by the Respondent, it was noted that in the matter at hand, the investigation was completed. Therefore, the broad outcome of the investigation should be disclosed to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed with above direction.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 5 of 5