Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 31 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : (Total 6 cases)
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630210 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630483
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630235 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/638655
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/624078 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/623866
RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY ....शिकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax 47,
C H Area, Jamshedpur - 83100 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.05.2024
Date of Decision : 31.05.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Complaints have been clubbed together for decision
by common order as these are based on RTI Applications filed by the same
Complainant against same Public Authority.
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 03.07.2020, 11.09.2020, 07.10.2020,
18.02.2021
CPIO replied on : 30.06.2022, 22.05.2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
Page 1 of 15
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2023, 20.06.2023
Information sought:
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630210 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.10.2020 seeking the following information:
"Recently a case has been registered by Hon. Lokpal of India on my complaints for issue of bogus and illegal refunds to Officers of Bokaro Steel Plant for the AYs 2009-10 to 2016-17, as accepted by CCIT, Ranchi. This refund arose due to non-inclusion of perks into salary income the said officers. Bokaro Steel Plant failed to upload the perks amount on 26 AS, whereas tax was deducted on both amounts. Assessing Officers of Bokaro were timely informed by me for issuing notices u/s 147 of the IT Act for re-assessment and recovery of illegal refunds but they failed to do so as they shared the amount 50-50 from the officers to whom such bogus refunds were issued. This issue was raised by me several times, but no action was taken either by Mr. PK Mondal, JCIT, Mr. SK Roy, JCIT, Mr. BK Singh, DCIT, Mr. TK Dutta, PCIT (Now in jail, arrested by CBI) and Mr. RB Naik, PCIT, Hazaribagh as such several thousand cases became time barred and huge revenue was lost. Out of more than 12000 cases of bogus refund amounting to more than 100 crores of rupees, action in only 345 cases was taken as accepted by CCIT, Ranchi. Similar practice is being followed at many places like Durgapur, Bhilai, Rourkela Steel Plant, Vizag Steel Plant, and other PSUs like CCL, BCCL, WCL etc. all over the country.
Kindly provide me with the following information in respect of all PCIT Charges.
1. Total Number of Assessing Officers having jurisdiction of Salary Cases of Public Sector Undertakings (All PCIT charge wise).
2. Total number of cases in which perks were not added to the salary income of the respective assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to A.Y.2016-17.
3. Total amount of refund issued without adding Perks income in their ITRs for the period as at sl.2 above. (Year wise)
4. Total amount recovered out of bogus refund issued as at sl.3 Above."Page 2 of 15
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 22.05.2024 by stating as under -
1. "Myself is an Assessing Officer.
2. 3 & 4. NIL "
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630483 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.02.2021 seeking the following information:
"My complaint in respect of Huge Bogus Income Tax Refund Scam at Bokaro Income Tax Office vide No.40/2020 has been closed based on report of CVC dated 15/01/2021 and CBDT dated 15/12/2020.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Copy of enquiry report submitted to the CVC and Lokpal of India regarding not finding any wrongdoings against Officers.
2. Number of cases in which remedial action were taken by the CBDT and concerned IT Officers until 2018.
3. Complete file noting involving sending of reports to CVC and Lokpal regarding Complaint No.40/2020.
3. Copy reports of PCCIT, Patna, CCIT, Ranchi, PCIT, Hazaribagh and JCIT, Bokaro in respect of this complaint to CBDT."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 22.05.2024 by stating as under -
"Point No. 1-4: The information does not pertain to the charge of Circle- 1, Jamshedpur, hence the information is NIL."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630235 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.10.2020 seeking the following information:
"Recently a case has been registered by Hon. Lokpal of India on my complaints for issue of bogus and illegal refunds to Officers of Bokaro Steel Plant for the AYs 2009-10 to 2016-17, as accepted by CCIT, Ranchi. This refund arose due to the non-inclusion of perks into salary income the said officers. Bokaro Steel Page 3 of 15 Plant failed to upload the perks amount on 26 AS, whereas tax was deducted on both amounts. Assessing Officers of Bokaro were timely informed by me for issuing notices u/s 147 of the IT Act for re-assessment and recovery of illegal refunds but they failed to do so as they shared the amount 50-50 from the officers to whom such bogus refunds were issued. This issue was raised by me several times, but no action was taken either by Mr. PK Mondal, JCIT, Mr. SK Roy, JCIT, Mr. BK Singh, DCIT, Mr. TK Dutta, PCIT (Now in jail, arrested by CBI) and Mr. RB Naik, PCIT, Hazaribagh as such several thousand cases became time barred and huge revenue was lost. Out of more than 12000 cases of bogus refund amounting to more than 100 crores of rupees, action in only 345 cases was taken as accepted by CCIT, Ranchi. Similar practice is being followed at many places like Durgapur, Bhilai, Rourkela Steel Plant, Vizag Steel Plant and other PSUs like CCL,BCCL, WCL etc. all over the country.
Kindly provide me with the following information in respect of all PCCIT Charges.
1. Total Number of Assessing Officers having jurisdiction of Salary Cases of Public Sector Undertakings (All PCCIT charge wise).
2. Total number of cases in which perks were not added to the salary income of the respective assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to A.Y.2016-17.
3. Total amount of refund issued without adding Perks income in their ITRs for the period as at sl.2 above. (Year wise)
4. Total amount recovered out of bogus refund issued as at sl.3 Above."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 22.05.2024 by stating as under -
4. "Myself is an Assessing Officer.
5. 3 & 4. NIL "
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/638655 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.08.2022 seeking the following information:
"Bank account of Param ji Alias His Holiness was opened on 16-03-2005 in the State Bank of India, Chas Branch. But the case of PAHH was selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 on the Sole ground of not disclosing this Bank Page 4 of 15 Account (ending 31-03-2003). This terrorist activities were undertaken by some corrupt officers of Income Tax Department, Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi.
Kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Name of the CCIT/CIT according to sanction for scrutiny of the case of PAHH for the AY 2003-04.
2. Copy of Order sheet involving section process for scrutiny as above."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 22.05.2024 by stating as under -
"Point No. 1-2: The information does not pertain to the charge of Circle- 1, Jamshedpur, hence the information is NIL."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/624078 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 Param ji 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. The 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 were 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. The 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 the Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me with the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Patna.Page 5 of 15
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, Patna until today."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 30.06.2022 by stating as under -
"Records have been verified. No such case has been found."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/623866 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me with the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Patna.
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, Patna until today."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 30.06.2022 by stating as under -
"Records have been verified. No such case has been found."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaints.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Satyendra Kumar, ITO -cum-CPIO Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur accompanied with Shri Kalyan Xalxo , CPIO Jamshedpur present through video- conference.
Written submissions filed by the Respondent are taken on record.
In case File Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630210, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630483, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630235, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/638655 -Page 6 of 15
Respondent submitted that due to merging and restructuring of their office coupled with non-accessibility of the online RTI portal due to absence of ID and password, online RTI Applications were not replied to within the stipulated time period. However, upon receipt of copy of RTI applications with the hearing notice of the Commission, possible efforts were made to trace the records and point-wise reply has been made available to the Complainant in each cases on 22.05.2024. The Respondent tendered his apology or delayed reply by pleading that it was unintentional and be condoned in the interest of justice.
In case File Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/623866 and CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/624078 Respondent reiterated the contents of his written submissions, extracts of which are reproduced below -
1. It is respectfully submitted that the concerned CPIO office is the Office of the Income-tax Officer, Ward- 1(4), Jamshedpur which had ceased to exist in the year 2020 itself. In the year 2020 itself, i.e., approx. two years before the filing of the RTI application under reference, five erstwhile jurisdictional wards including Ward- 1(4), Jamshedpur had got merged and a single Jurisdictional Ward namely Ward- 1(1), Jamshedpur was created.
2. The RTI application under reference was also received in the office of the CPIO-cum-ITO, Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur and following reply was duly sent to the complainant from the said office:
"Records have been verified. No such case has been found."
3. In light of the above, it is humbly and respectfully prayed to your honour that no adverse view may be taken in respect of this complainant. Submitted for your honour's kind consideration."
Respondents further explained to the Commission that no such data is maintained in the compiled form and compiling it to give the reply to RTI Applications will involve opening of thousands of ITR assessment cases where the work force and resources of their office would have been diverted completely to verify each and every individual case record, which are thousands in numbers. This diversion of time and resources would have hampered other statutory work including those which are quasi-judicial in nature and are bound by limitation of time. Thus, the information sought being voluminous in nature and available at several different locations, collating and Page 7 of 15 compiling it would have disproportionately diverted the resources of the department, thereby attracting the provision of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Respondent added that Complainant is a habitual RTI applicant who filed numerous RTI applications to harass the Respondent Public Authority to clog their working system. He urged the Commission to intervene in the matter and take some action against this misconduct of the complainant.
Decision The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondents and perusal of the records, notes that all RTI applications have been duly replied by the respondent. After receipt of hearing notices, the respondent had provided updated reply/information to the complainant as per available records on 21.05.2024 and copies of the same is placed on record. The factual position regarding the non-availability of information being very old in the above matters has already been informed to the complainant. The Commission further observes that there is a substantial delay in providing reply to the Complainant on the above-mentioned RTI applications in case file Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630210, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630483, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/630235, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/638655 , for which the Respondent informed the bench that due to Pandemic lockdown at the relevant time and later, owing to merging and restructuring, the above-mentioned RTI applications were not attended within the mandated period. The Respondent apologized for the same and assured that such lapses would not recur in future.
Moreover, the Commission agrees with the stand of the Respondents made during the hearing that records of information sought were not readily available in the compiled form and, collation and compilation of it would divert the time and resources of the Respondent Public Authority in terms of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. A similar issue of the complainant has already been dealt Page 8 of 15 with by this bench in the recent past vide case File Nos. CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633120 & Others decided on 21.05.2024.
The Commission further observes that the complainant has not filed any first appeal in the above-mentioned cases and reasons for the same could not be ascertained as he was not present before the Commission despite notice. The Complainant neither filed any written objections nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondents and further agitate the matter. The Complainant in his above-mentioned complaints failed to establish any mala fide on part of the Respondents in replying to the RTI applications or for withholding the information, if any.
Further, 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 that his intention is 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 2000 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 118 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 appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
Page 9 of 15Here, the Commission would also like to recall its earlier observations made in bunch matter of the same Complainant in case File Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2021/630320 and Others decided on 21.02.2024; and CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/659908 and Others decided on 23.02.2024 wherein it was held as under -
"....the Commission finds it pertinent to mention that today 100 Complaints of the Complainant are being heard so that he does not have to appear frequently in the hearing on different dates and his time and resource are saved besides saving him from inconvenience. On one hand, the Commission is devoting very substantive time on his cases, but the Complainant by choosing to be absent in the hearing, has adopted a very casual, in fact, irresponsible act.
The scope of adjudication in the above-mentioned complaints filed under Section 18 of RTI Act, 2005 is limited to ascertaining whether the information has been denied with any mala fide intention or without any reasonable cause by the Respondent. The Commission observes that firstly, the replies given by the Respondent on above-mentioned RTI applications are within the stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Secondly, the information available on record has already been provided to the Complainant.
The Complainant in his above-mentioned complaints has not explained the deficiency in the information provided. The Commission further observed that merely stating that the reply given is not satisfactory is not sufficient grounds to take action against the Respondent under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
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 Page 10 of 15 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.
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 Page 11 of 15 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 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:
Page 12 of 15"...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 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 Page 13 of 15 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 and Complaints which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. The Respondent has pleaded for remedy against repeated and humongous number of RTI applications and Complaints by the same person. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a 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 and leave it to the respondent to choose a remedy.
Page 14 of 15"...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-said observations, the Commission finds no mala fide on part of the CPIOs. Further, 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 instead of making it as a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.
With these observations, the instant Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्ि) Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाणणत सत्यापित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 15 of 15 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)