Respondent referred to the heavy load of work due to additional charge & that the Complainant had opportunity to file the first appeal - Complainant did not file the first appeal or attend the hearing – CIC issued Show cause notice to PIO for penalty
30 Oct, 2017O R D E R
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding total number of applications and Complaints filed under RTI Act, 2005 during the month of May, 2016. The CPIO and Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1 and 2, Hazaribagh, vide its letter dated 29.06.2016 denied disclosure of information as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 since the information sought was not related to any larger public interest. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy (M:7738263003);
Respondent: Absent;
The Respondent remained absent despite prior intimation. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Representative of NIC Studio at Hazaribagh confirmed the absence of Respondent.
The Complainant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that 09 of his RTI applications were replied by way of a single letter by the CPIO. It was submitted that none of his RTI applications were replied satisfactorily causing undue harassment and victimisation to him. While substantiating his contention regarding malafide on the part of the Respondents, the Complainant submitted that the orders of the Commission were deliberately not complied with by the Respondent.
The Commission noted that a similar case had been adjudicated in Complaint No.:-CIC/BS/C/2016/000395-BJ dated 20.06.2017 wherein the Commission had directed the then CPIO Mr. P.K Mondal, now posted as JCIT, TDS (in charge of Dhanbad and Ranchi) to send his written submission expeditiously within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of order to show cause why penal action should not be taken against him under the provision of Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act,2005 for this misconduct and negligence. Moreover, the Commission had also directed Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Roy, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax to ensure that same was complied forthwith.
The Commission was in receipt of a written explanation from Mr. P.K. Mondal, JCIT, TDS, Range-2, Ranchi dated 29.06.2017 with respect to the aforementioned show cause notice. On a query regarding whether he was in receipt of the explanation, the Complainant replied in the negative. During the course of hearing, a copy of the written explanation was handed over to the Complainant which was duly acknowledged by him. In his written submission the Respondent articulated that he had tried his level best to discharge his duties with due diligence and sincerity and that in number of cases reply had been sent within the stipulated time period. A reference was made to the heavy load of work due to additional charge and that the Complainant had opportunity to file the first appeal but he did not file the first appeal and neither did he attend the hearing. It was alleged that the Complainant deliberately avoided corresponding with the Respondent. Furthermore, it was argued that the Complainant had no business to seek details of the RTI applications filed as no larger public interest was called. A reference was made to several orders of the Commission where the Complainant had not pressed for any action. A specific decision of the CIC in Compliant No. CIC/BS/C/2016/000083-BJ dated 03.04.2017 was cited where the Complainant had not pressed for the matter. The Commission observed that this reply to the show cause notice would be dealt with separately in the concerned file.
As regards, the subject matter of the RTI application under consideration in the present matter, the Commission was appalled to learn that exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 was claimed by the Respondent on queries pertaining to generic information relating to the total number of RTI Applications and Complaints filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 and no personal details of a third party were sought.
In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Treesha Irish v. The CPIO and Ors. WP (C) No. 6532 of 2006 dated 30.08.2010 wherein it was held as under:
“23. There is no provision anywhere in the Act to the effect that information can be refused to be disclosed if no public interest is involved. Of course in a case of personal information, if it has no relationship with any public activity or interest, the information officer has discretion to refuse to disclose the same, if the larger public interest does not justify disclosure of such information. But on the ground of lack of public interest involved alone, the public information officer cannot refuse to disclose the information, without a finding first that the information is personal information having no relationship to any public activity or interest.”
The Commission felt that the conduct of the Respondent was such which exhibits utmost disrespect to the RTI Act, 2005 more so for the reason that the queries related to number of RTI applications and Complaints filed with the Public Authority which should be suo motu disclosed in compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, as per Section 25 (3) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005, each Ministry/ Department shall prepared a report and provide the information to the Central /State Information Commission as the case may be and state the number of request made to each Public Authority. Therefore, it can be concluded without any ambiguity that information sought cannot be classified as being exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission referred to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 (CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors) in the context of suo-motu disclosure of information wherein it was observed as under:
“37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption”
Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
“16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year; and 4(1)(c) Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public; on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information.”
Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015, while dealing with significance of free flow of information had stated as under:
“The ideal of ‘Government by the people’ makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for ‘open governance’ which is a foundation of democracy.”
DECISION
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Complainant and the afore-said decision of the Commission, the Commission directs the then CPIO Mr. P.K Mondal, now posted as JCIT,TDS (in charge of Dhanbad and Ranchi) to show cause why penal action should not be taken against under the provision of Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act, 2005 for this misconduct and negligence within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of that order under intimation to the Complainant.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy v. Income Tax Department Complaint No.:-CIC-CBDTD-C-2016-299256-BJ Date of Decision: 21.07.2017