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: CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/631568
RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY ....शिकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Aaykar Bhawan, Rabindra Path,
Hazaribagh - 825301 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.05.2024
Date of Decision : 24.05.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 02.04.2022
CPIO replied on : 06.05.2022
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.06.2023
Page 1 of 13
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.04.2022 seeking the following information:
"Huge revenue loss amounting to more than 100 crores was caused by Assessing Officers of Bokaro Income Tax Office including Mr. BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro in more than 12000 cases of bogus and illegal refunds issued to Officers and employees of Bokaro Steel Plant on account of not adding perks into their salary income. It is strange that this matter did not make CBDT pay attention for recovery of bogus refund until now. Mr. PK Mondal and Mr. SK Roy, both then JCIT were informed by several letters to act, but as they took lions share, they chose to keep mum. Mr. RB Naik, PCIT, Hazaribagh and Mr. V. Mahalingam, then CCIT, Ranchi also did not act against their corrupt officers of Bokaro for the obvious reason of being involved in corruption. Despite my several complaints and reminders for issue of re-assessment notices in all 12000 cases, notices for re-assessment were issued in only 345 cases (as reported by CCIT, Ranchi) leaving more than 11000 cases which got barred by limitation.
Now, kindly provide me with the following information.
1. Number of cases as above in which notices for re-assessment were issued assessing officers wise during the financial year 2021-22.
2. Number of cases which were barred by limitation as on 31-03-2022.
3. Name and designation of officers responsible for not acting for recovery of bogus refund during FY 2021-22.
4. Action taken on officers as at sl.3 above."
The CPIO, ITO W 3(1), Bokaro (upon receipt of RTI application on transfer basis) replied to the Complainant on 06.05.2022 by stating as under -
"1. Number of cases as above in which notices for re-assessment were issued assessing officers wise during the financial year 2021-22: NIL.
2. Number of cases which were barred by limitation as on 31-03-2022: NIL.
3. Name and designation of officers responsible for not taking action for recovery of bogus refund during the FY 2021-22: Not applicable.Page 2 of 13
4. Action taken on officers as at sl.3 above: Not applicable."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the ground of "no reply" received from the CPIO till date.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Represented by Shri Shashi Bhushan, ITO Ward 1(1)-cum-CPIO, Hazaribagh present through video-conference.
A written submission dated 23.05.2024 filed by Shri Kailash V. Gautam, JCIT- cum-CPIO, Range- 1, Hazaribagh is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for the sake of clarity -
"1) That I am presently holding the additional charge of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range- 1, Hazaribagh.
2) That the notice for hearing on 24-05-2024 has been received in this office on 20-05-
2024.
3) The complaint was filed against this u/s 18 read with section 20 of RTI Act, 2005.
4) The question here is "I had filed an application under RTI Act with the above mentioned CPIO/Department but failed because: there is no reply from the CPIO until today."
5) That RTI application vide request registration number CCAPT/R/T/22/00159, dated 02/04/2022 stated "Huge revenue loss amounting to more than 100 crores was caused by Assessing Officers of Bokaro Income Tax Office including Mr BK Singh, then DCIT, Bokaro in more than 12000 cases of bogus and illegal refunds issued to Officers and employees of Bokaro Steel Plant on account of not adding perks into their salary income. It is strange that this matter did not made CBDT to pay attention for recovery of bogus refund until now. Mr. PK Mondal and Mr. SK Roy, both then JCIT were informed by several letters to take action, but as they took lions share, they chose to keep mum. Mr. RB Naik, PCIT, Hazaribagh and Mr. V.Mahalingam, then CCIT, Ranchi also did not take action against their corrupt officers of Bokaro for the obvious reason of being involved in corruption. In spite of my several complaints and reminders for Page 3 of 13 issue of re-assessment notices in all 12000 cases, notices for re-assessment were issued in only 345 cases(as reported by CCIT, Ranchi) leaving more than 11000 cases which got barred by limitation. Now Kindly provide me the following information. 1. Number of cases as above in which notices for re-assessment were issued assessing officers wise during the financial year 2021-22. 2. Number of cases which were barred by limitation as on 31-03-2022. 3. Name and designation of officers responsible for not taking action for recovery of bogus refund during the FY 2021-22. 4. Action taken on officers as at sl.3 above. 5. The fee is paid online."
6) In context to the above (Sno. 04) subject matter, the fact is that the RTI application has already been transferred to concerned CPIO I.e. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Bokaro under section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 through manually. It is pertinent to mention here that the said application has been received on 04-04-2022 to Nodal Officer and accordingly transferred to then CPIO-cum-JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh on 20-04-2022 through online. The same pertains to ITO, Ward-3(1), Bokaro but RTI module (RTI MIS) doesn't show the Name/designation of concerned CPIO-cum-ITO, Ward-3(1), Bokaro. Accordingly, no option left but transferred to above application though manually to concerned CPIO and the CPIO-cum-ITO, Ward-3(1). It is also mentioned here that as on date the same issue has also occurred in RTI MIS module and case is pending before the undersigned.
7) The complainant has also filed RTI application vide Registration Number CCAPT/R/T/22/00159/1 dated 04-04-2022 before Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Patna on 04-04-2022 with reference Number CCAPT/R/T/00159 (i.e. above mentioned case) and request the same information as mentioned in Para No 5 above under RTI Act, 2005 and the same was also been transferred to concerned CPIO-cum- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Bokaro under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 on 07- 04-2022 through online. The CPIO-cum-Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Bokaro was also disposed of the same on 06 May 2022 (copy of the same is enclosed herewith for your kind ready reference.) In this way, In this way, the contention of the applicant that there Is no reply from the CPIO until today is not true as the above Information has already been given to complainant as mentioned above.
8) It is humbly submitted that the multiple RTI applications and then multiple complaints have been filed by the complainant. However, erstwhile CPIO has replied against all RTI application after due application of mind and within the meaning of section 2(f) of RTI Act without any malafide intention and within the prescribed time. The working situation had become unmanageable and clogged with multiple RTI applications. It is to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Page 4 of 13 Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion:
"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....."
9) In the above context, it is also submitted that [W.P (C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its order dated 08.10.2015 has held that: 8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.......
10) Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the Apex Court had discussed the issue in great SC detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 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 www.taxguru.in Page 8 of 12 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 Page 5 of 13 frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial systems....."
11) in the last it is also submitted that in the case or Central board of secondary coocation &Anr Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (SLP (C) No. 7526/2009, Civil Appeal No 6454 of 2011), Hon'ble Supreme Court has exhaustively explained the different sections, their meaning and scope of RTI Act. In the para no 37, hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that;
"... 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, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted 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 the applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under RTI Act and the pressure of the authority under RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'furnishing information', at the cost of their normal and regular duties..."
With the above submission, It is to submit that, the ground cited for complaint under section 18 read with section 20 does not arise. Therefore, Hon'ble Sir/Madam is requested to kindly accept the above written submission for this case and if any mistake has been committed inadvertently by CPIO, may kindly be condoned."
Respondent submitted that a point-wise reply has already been provided to the Complainant on 06.05.2022 with the available information. He further emphasized that Complainant is a habitual RTI applicant who filed numerous RTI applications to harass the Respondent Public Authority by clogging 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 the RTI application has been adequately replied by the Respondent in terms of the RTI Act. After receipt of hearing notices, the Respondent provided updated reply/information to the complainant as per available records vide written Page 6 of 13 submission dated 23.05.2024 which is treated as revised reply and copy of the same is placed on record. The factual position in this matter regarding Nil information available in their office has also been informed by the Respondent.
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 his intention 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 7 of 13Here, 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 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 Page 8 of 13 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 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:Page 9 of 13
".........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:
"...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 Page 10 of 13 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 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:
Page 11 of 13"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 which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. 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 -
"...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 Page 12 of 13 Information Act in future instead of making it as a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.
The 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 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)