Central Information Commission
Jyothi Jyoti Prasad Devi As Per Adhar vs Director General Of Income Tax (Hrd), ... on 15 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DGITH/A/2022/668131
Jyothi Jyoti Prasad Devi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Director General of Income Tax,
(HRD), New Delhi Plot No. ICADR,
Vasant Kunj Institutional Area,
Phase II, New Delhi - 110070. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/09/2023
Date of Decision : 14/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20/09/2022
CPIO replied on : 18/10/2022
First appeal filed on : 18/10/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 04/11/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Under the RTI, Act kindly provide following information. I want this information from the The Central Board of Direct Tax Not form the other offices under the Board. If the CPIO is neither competent nor is expected to interpret the circular, it is requested to kindly pass on my RTI to the concerned authority who can comment of my query as the same is not clear is the letter issued by the CBDT, HRD,
1. The ICT circular dated 14/05/1990 issued by whom? Is it CBDT or Ministry of Finance?
2. If the ICT circular dated 14/05/1990 was issued by ministry of Finance as it is evident from the designation of signing authority? Is CBDT is empowered to cancel/modify the ICT circular dated 14/05/1990? Kindly give the proof that empowers CBDT to modify the ICT circular dated14/05/1990.
3. What is the meaning of all formalities regarding ICT issued by CBDT, HRD vide letter dated 27/04/2021. If the CPIO is neither competent nor is expected to interpret the circular, it is requested to kindly pass on my RTI to the issuing authority of the letter so that along with officers of the department and other may be able to know the exact meaning.
4. Is all formalities regarding ICT means is the relieving commissionerate agrees to relieve and accepting commissionerate agrees to absorb? If CPIO is neither competent nor is expected to interpret the circular it is requested the CPIO to kindly pass on my RTI to the issuing authority of the letter so that I may be able to know the exact meaning as the letter does not speaks what it means by.
5. In the history of CBDT whether any instruction/letter was issued in which only parts of all eligible officials/officers (whose name were in the order passed by competent authority in the same FY for same benefits after due formalities here I mean old ICT) are given benefits but others are deprived off it. If yes, please provide the copy-[if the CPIO does not reply on my query it means he/she has intention to conceal/deny to share the information]
6. Is it officials fault who does not got transfer on old ICT after full filling all the necessary criteria laid down by circular dated 14/05/1990 (whereas same got transfer on the same ICT Circular) and NOC was issued and 2 communicated by the one commissionerate to NOC seeking commissionerate of CBDT, and all this happened due issuing of different letter by CBDT, HRD? If CPIO is neither competent nor is expected to interpret the circular it is requested the CPIO to kindly pass on my RTI to the issuing authority of the letters so that he/she may reply the same.
7. If the reply of query no 7 is yes, what is remedy? If CPIO is neither competent nor is expected to interpret the circular/comment it is requested the CPIO to kindly pass on my RTI to the issuing authority of the letter due to this happen.
8. Whether CBDT or any wings /part of it has any rights to modify the circular issued by under-secretary of the government of India here it is F.NO.A- 22020/76/89-Ad.VII Dated 14/5/1990 issued under secretary of the government of India known as old ICT circular, If yes, under which Act/Rule kindly provide the copy of same. If CPIO is neither competent nor is expected to interpret the circular/comment it is requested the CPIO to kindly pass on my RTI to the issuing authority of the letter.]
9. Is HRD of the CBDT not doing injustice for those ICT aspirant whose NOC has been received in the different commissionerate of CBDT after following the due procedures and barring them to relieve by issuing letters. Just reply in yes or No. If CPIO is neither competent nor is expected to interpret the circular/comment it is requested the CPIO to kindly pass on my RTI to the issuing authority of the letter.]
10. Please provide the reply copy of the letter of The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Pune (letter no. Na.Pn/Pr.CC/EST/ICT/058 (Vol.3)2020-21/3558 dated 22/12/2020) in which Pune Commissionerate has sought some approval where NOC live "Kind approval is sought for relieving as they were approved for ICT through orders by the Pr.CCIT, Pune through orders dated 20.11.2018 and 8.2.2019"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 18.10.2022 stating as under:
"The requisite information as provided by the office of the ITO, CMD-II, HRD is as under-3
1. The information sought is in the nature of clarification which does not fall under the definition of information as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further as on date the policy on ICT for Income Tax Department employees for Group C is governed by this Directorate letter dated 22.12.2020(copy enclosed) which is self-explanatory.
2 to 9. As stated in 1 above.
10 . No such information available with this directorate".
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.10.2022. FAA's order dated 04.11.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Not present.
None of the parties appeared for the hearing despite due service of the notice of hearing.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought for by the Appellant does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the queries are speculative in nature and seek for clarifications and deductions to be provided by the CPIO. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(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 4 which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"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.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:5
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
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."
(Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the CPIO has provided a reply that suffices the mandate of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6