Information pertaining to Shri Madhavrao Dhavlikar Charitable Trust was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Appellant: Trust was formed under the Indian Trust Act, its source of income was from tax payers and the trustees were public figures - CIC: Denial upheld

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2019 seeking the following information pertaining to Shri Madhavrao Dhavlikar Charitable Trust: “…certified Xerox copies of;

1. Certificate of Registration of the said charitable trust,

2. The constitution / NOC from Income-tax office,

3. Receipt & Payment A/c, income & Expenditure A/c and Balance sheet, for 2006-07 to 2017-18.”

The CPIO replied to the appellant on 11.03.2019 stating as follows:-

“In this regard a notice was issued to Shri Madhavrao Dhavlikar Charitable Trust in F.No. RTI/Pr.C1T/PNJ/2018-19, dated: 19/02/2019 regarding calling for NOC to furnish information u/s. 11(2) of the RTI Act. Shri Madhavrao Dhavlikar Charitable Trust, vide its submission dated: 28/02/2019, received in this office on 11/03/2019 has submitted that the information related to it may not be disclosed to anyone. Therefore observing on the submission of Shri Madhavrao Dhavilkar Charitable Trust and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Girish Deshpande vs. Cen. Information Commissioner and others (2011) 8 SCC 4977, the undersigned as CPIO is not obliged to provide the sought information under RTI Act, 2005.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.04.2019. FAA’s order dated 14.05.2019 also denied the 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. 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, 2005.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of denial of information by the CPIO.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 21.12.2021:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Represented by Advocate Akshata present through audio-conference.

Respondent: Mayur Kamble, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & CPIO present through audio-conference.

The Advocate of the Appellant expressed her dissatisfaction with the denial of information by the CPIO under the garb of 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. 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 RTI Act. She stated that since the said Trust was formed under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 and the Income Tax Authorities had granted NOC to this effect and the fact that its source of income was from tax payers as also the trustees of the Trust were public figures; therefore, public interest involved therein outweighed the harm or injury to the interest of the third party; as such information should be furnished by the CPIO.

The CPIO submitted that since the information pertained to a third party viz. Madhavrao Dhavlikar Charitable Trust hence, a notice was sent to them under Section 11(2) of RTI Act seeking their consent for disclosure of the information to the Appellant in response to the RTI Application. He further submitted that subsequently on 28.02.2019, the said Trust conveyed their dissent for the disclosure of the information and accordingly, the Appellant was denied the information. He furthermore submitted that information regarding the public activity is already in the public domain and the same can be accessed from their official weblink.

In order to clarify whether the said Trust filed ITR or claimed exemption under Section 80 G under Income Tax Act without which further proceedings could not be conducted, the Commission asked the CPIO to clarify the factual position. In response to it, the CPIO failed to tender clarification and sought time to check the records in this regard from their concerned exemption department.

Interim Decision:

In view of the hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to appear before the bench on 11.01.2022 at 1.00 pm (through audio-conference mode) with the complete and relevant facts regarding the status of the averred trust. The CPIO is also directed to send detailed written submissions along with supporting documents at least 2 working days prior to the date of hearing with a copy of it duly endorsed to the Appellant. The CPIO is also directed to serve a copy of this order to the concerned third party trust seeking their appearance before the bench through its authorized representative on the said date and time through audio conference mode.

The Appellant is at liberty to file counter written submission in the matter.

The Registry attached with this bench is directed to ensure due service of this order to the concerned CPIO for the scheduled audio conference hearing. The appeal is reserved for final order.

Proceedings of Final Decision

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present:-

Appellant: Represented by Advocate Akshata present through audio-conference.

Respondent: Mayur Kamble, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & CPIO present through audio-conference.

Third-party: Nikhil Dhavilkar present through audio-conference.

The CPIO at the outset relied on his written submission dated 08.01.2022 and reiterated the contents of it, which is extracted here as under -

“2. The applicant was active member of and office bearer of the said political party. Further on perusal of the application, it is seen that the applicant has not brought on record any fact that the activities of the trust are used for purposes which are otherwise then the purpose which is in larger public interest. The activities which are performed by the trust are known to the applicant and he has also submitted some photocopies/ photographs of the same.

The applicant has not been able to prove that his Application seeking 1. Certificate of registration 2. The Constitution /NOC from Income Tax Office 3. Receipt and Payment Account, Income & expenditure Account and Balance Sheet, from 2006-2007 to 2017-2018 of this Private Family Trust is in larger public interest and thus is not hit by the clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

3. It is to be noted that, this is a case which is of a Private Family Trust. The then CPIO had issued a notice {F.No.RTI/Pr.CIT/PNJ/ 2018-191 dated 19/02/2019 to the trust {Shri Madhavrao Dhavilakar Charitable Trust) regarding for No Objection Certificate for furnishing information as per the RTI act. In reply to this, the trust vide their letter Dated 28/02/2019 as submitted to the CPIO, has categorically mentioned that the information related to it may not be disclosed to anyone.

4 The CPIO in the order passed IF. No. / RTI/ Pr. CIT/ PNJ/ 20 18- 19 Dated 11/03/2019; had quoted the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Girish Deshpande Vs Central Information Commissioner and others (2011) 8SCC 497; wherein the Apex Court has been held that the information which is held by the third party in its fiduciary capacity and which is personal information stands exempted from disclosure as per the clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless it involves larger public interest and the CPIO and the Appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Considering this ruling the information as sought, was denied to the Applicant.

4. At the same time, it is brought to the notice of the Hon’ble CIC that the PAN Number of the said trust is not on record in this RTI Query. The Undersigned had tried to execute a name-based search of the said trust (Shri Madhavrao Dhauilakar Charitable Trust) on the ITBA Application of the Income Tax Department, the search result has shown that 'No Data found'. A screen shot of the same is enclosed.

6. Considering the application but not conceding, if at all that the said DATA may be shared with the Applicant, it is humbly submitted that since the PAN number of the said Trust is not on record and also the Applicant had not brought the same on record the DATA as sought. by the applicant cannot be made available at this stage….”

He further apprised the Commission that yet in a bid to ascertain further details he tried to get in touch with the Trustees and one of the family members responded to him and provided him with the PAN details prior to the hearing, but he needs some additional time to find out if any corresponding record of registration of the said Trust exists with respect to the said PAN.

Further, Nikhil Dhavilkar (the third party representing the Trust) submitted that the averred Trust is a Private Trust managed by the family members of Dhavilkar clan for charitable purposes. He further submitted that the source of income of the Trust is the funds generated from their friend circle and no grants as such is received from the Government. He added that since the Trust is not a public authority therefore, denial of information by the CPIO is justified. Lastly, he alleged that the Appellant has filed the instant RTI Application only out of political vendetta to harass the family which constituted the trust.

The Advocate of the Appellant reiterated her stand as taken during the interim hearing.

FINAL DECISION

The Commission based on a detailed scrutiny of the facts on record finds that the CPIO had adequately justified the denial of the 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. 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 as the information relates to a third party. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged 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. 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 RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…”

Further, in the facts of the present case, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of larger public interest subsisting in the matter keeping in view a catena of judgments of the superior Courts as under:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:

“23. The expression ‘public interest’ has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression ‘public interest’ must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression ‘public interest’, like ‘public purpose’, is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied

“24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision….”

“.... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India.” Emphasis Supplied

Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to ‘public interest’ it has been maintained that:

“Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, ‘diffused’ rights and interests vindicate public interest… [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” Emphasis Supplied

And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]”. Emphasis Supplied

As it follows, in the considered opinion of this bench the Appellant has not urged larger public interest in any of the above referred contexts, and therefore the Commission is not in a position to ascribe any credence to his contentions.

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Lavu Suryaji Mamledar v. Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in File No : CIC/ITATP/A/2019/139500, Date of Final Decision 24/01/2022