Central Information Commission
Pratik Kumar Rastogi vs Direcot General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... on 9 June, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DGITH/A/2019/101381/DGITL
Pratik Kumar Rastogi ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o Income Tax Officer, ...प्रनतवािी/Respondent
Ward 1(3), Ghaziabad.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 12-08-2018 FA : 18-09-2018 SA: 08-01-2019
CPIO : 28-08-2018 FAO : 15-10-2018 Hearing: 04-06-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Ghaziabad seeking following information:-
"(i). Please provide me the Case No./Diary Number/reference No. allotted to my complaint dated 26-12-2017 and the category under which my TEP complaint falls.
ii). Please intimate me the date on which Notice was issued to Mr. K K Gupta in r/o my TEP complaint and under which section.
iii) Did Mr. K K Gupta accept that he had spent Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rs.
Fifty Lakh) in the marriage as stated by her daughter in FIR, DV Case and Maintenance Case filed at Mahila Thana, Ghaziabad and Ghaziabad Court.
etc."
2. The CPIO responded on 28-08-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 18-09-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 15-10- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO Page 1 of 5 u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Pratik Kumar Rastogi participated in the hearing through audio conferencing. The respondent did not participate in the hearing and was also not reachable on the given telephone number despite efforts. However, the CPIO is exempted on account of the CIC's circular no. CIC/Legal/Corona/2020/32 dated 16-03-2020. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant submitted that the current status of his Tax Evasion Petition dated 26-12-2017 should be informed to him. Further, he submitted that the information is required expediently in the interest of justice and is therefore mandatory to prove him innocence in various false cases foisted by his father-in- law, Mr. K K Gupta and his wife Ms. Pinki Gupta.
Decision:
5. This Commission observes that the outcome of the Tax Evasion Petition dated 26-12-2017 should be communicated to the appellant. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to provide the outcome of the Tax Evasion Petition dated 26-12-2017 to the appellant, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
6. However, the queries raised by appellant on rest of the points such as whether Mr. K K Gupta had spent Rs. Fifty Lakh in his daughter's marriage, whether Rs. 27,62,744/- was given to the appellant as dowry etc. are presumptive in nature which does not come within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the CPIO cannot be expected to provide answers to the hypothetical questions of the appellant. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 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."Page 2 of 5
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 is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497,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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in Page 3 of 5 the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
7. In light of the factual matrix of the instant case and the case-laws cited hereinabove, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is not obliged to provide clarification to the appellant with regard to the amount spent by Mr. K K Gupta in his daughter's marriage. Hence, presumptive queries need not be answered by the CPIO.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta ( )
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त)
दिनांक / Date 04-06-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अनिप्रमानित सत्यानपत प्रनत)
S. C. Sharma (एस. स . ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
O/o the Income Tax Officer,
Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Nodal CPIO,
RTI Cell, Income Tax Office, CGO, 1, Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad-201002, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Pratik Kumar Rastogi, Page 5 of 5