Information regarding a Public Charitable Trust was sought - Appellant: no information was provided - PIO: response letter was sent by ordinary post - CIC: response to RTI applications should be sent by speed post so as to ensure delivery
21 Dec, 2013ORDER
FACTS
1. Vide RTI dt 28.1.13, appellant had sought information on 6 points relating to Ramkumar Jalan Public Charitable Trust which included documents submitted for obtaining PAN, names of all Trustees, details of registered office address, details of Wealth Tax returns filed, TDS certificate issued and short term/long term capital gains.
2. An appeal was filed on 28.5.13 as no information was provided.
3. CPIO submitted that vide letter dt 26.2.13, a response had been provided to the appellant and information denied in the light of the Supreme Court’s order in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande. Appellant submitted that he had not received any response from the CPIO. CPIO clarified that the response letter had been sent by ordinary post. FAA submitted that the appeal dt 28.5.13 was not received by them. Appellant questioned this statement and submitted that he had sent his appeal by Speed Post and had in his possession acknowledgement of the letter having been received. Appellant further observed that he was a tenant in a property which is owned by the Trust and he along with several other tenants were directly affected by the re-development work undertaken by the Trust and as such they cannot be held to be third party.
DECISION
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande has held that Income Tax Returns and related documents is personal information and exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act unless larger public interest is shown. In the instant case, the appellant has not been able to show any larger public interest. Accordingly, the denial of information under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. is upheld.
5. The Commission directs the CPIO to ensure that in future response to RTI applications is sent by Speed Post so as to ensure delivery of the same. The appeal is disposed of.
(Rajiv Mathur)
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Amit Shah v. ITO in File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000926