Central Information Commission
Vijay Prakash Sharma vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... 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/CCITJ/A/2017/175937-BJ
Appellant : Mr. Vijay Prakash Sharma
Respondent : CPIO & ITO,
O/o ITO, Tonk, Rajasthan,
Kailash Bhawan, Malpura Gate,
Purani Tonk, Tonk (Raj.)
Date of Hearing : 08.01.2018
Date of Decision : 09.01.2018
Date of filing of RTI application 08.08.2017
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of filing the First appeal 22.09.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 18.10.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 13.11.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on regarding the response provided by the Station officer, Tonk with respect to the action taken on the letter dated 10.03.2017 and 21.03.2017.
The response of the CPIO is not on the record of the Commission. Dissatisfied by the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 18.10.2017 informed the Appellant that a response was provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 06.09.2017 whereby information was denied from disclosure u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA also concurred with the reply of the CPIO.
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 explained that the said RTI application was received in their office on 09.08.2017 and was disposed off on 06.09.2017. 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. This matter was investigated by the CPIO and necessary action Page 1 of 4 undertaken in accordance with Section 272B of the IT, Act, 1961. Necessary penalty was imposed on the Third Party and a some of Rs.10,000/- was recovered. In the meanwhile, the Appellant had also lodged a police complaint with the local police station which was under investigation. The FAA had also concurred with the reply of the CPIO and being a Third Party information, it was denied to the Appellant. Moreover, considering that the investigation in the matter was in progress, information was denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. 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.
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 28.12.2017 stated that no information had been received by him, till date. It was also clarified that the response of the CPIO dated 06.09.2017 had not been served upon him. It was also argued that the CPIO had violated the provisions of the RTI Act,2005 by denying any response to him and therefore prayed for imposition of maximum penalty against the CPIO and to provide him compensation.
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.
In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Civil Appeal no. 6454 of 2011 Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. which held as under:
"35...... the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions..."Page 2 of 4
Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of The Registrar Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra & Ors LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 wherein it was held as under:-
"15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, 'right to information' under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which is sought by the applicant".
A reference was drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court observation in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.(supra), wherein it has been held: "35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of "information" and "right to information" under clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant........"
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.
Moreover, 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 Page 3 of 4 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 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"
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 4 of 4