Section 7(1) of the RTI Act Vide RTI application dated 5-7-2011, the appellant sought information regarding illegal accounts of Indians in Liechtenstein, obtained from the German government and steps taken by the Government of India to deal with black money.
Not satisfied with the response of the PIO and FAA, before the Central Information Commission, the appellant in support of his argument referred to the Supreme Court decision dated 4-7-2011, in W/P (Civil) 176 of 2009, Ram Jethmalani vs. Union of India, and submitted that exemption u/s. 8(1)(a) and (f) as claimed by the CPIO was not tenable. He also made a reference to CIC decision (appeal OK/C/2008/00897 dated 15-7-2011) supporting his argument. The CPIO submitted that the government has filed a modification petition which is pending in the Supreme Court.
The public authority brought to the notice of the Commission a para of the judgement dt 4.7.2011 of Honourable Supreme Court in W.P (Civil) 176 of 2009, Ram Jethmalani & Ors vs. Union of India which reads as follows:
“That the special investigation, constituted pursuant to the orders of today by this court, shall take over the matter of investigation of the individuals whose names have been disclosed by Germany as having accounts in Banks in Liechtenstein and expeditiously conduct the same. The Special Investigation Team shall review the concluded matters also in this regard to assess whether investigations have been thoroughly and properly conducted or not, and on coming to the conclusion that there is a need for further investigation shall proceed further in the matter. After conclusion of such investigation by Special Investigation Team, the respondents may disclose the names with regard to whom show cause notices have been issued and proceedings initiated.”
The public authority has also submitted that the Union of India has moved application for seeking recall and/or modification of orders dated 4-7-2011.
The Commission decided that since the information sought by the appellant was sub-judice, the appeal be dismissed.
[Paras Nath Singh vs. CBDT, New Delhi: CIC/ DS/A/2011/003377 & 003607/RM: Decision dated 12-11-2012]
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
The appellant had sought certain information from the CPIO including names of assessees/cases in which scrutiny is complete. The CPIO held that Trusts/assessees are public authority and their activities are of public nature and hence information about them should be in the public domain. Accordingly, the number of cases in which scrutiny was completed, was provided. However, names of such assessees were withheld citing that no public interest will be served. The Commission held that disclosure of names of assesssees whose returns have been scrutinised, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy of the assessee, if this information is placed in the public domain and hence it is exempted from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. [Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. Asst. Director of IT (Exemptions), Trust Circle-II & Addl. Director of IT (Exemptions), Range-1, Delhi: CIC/DS/A/2011/ 003072/RM decided on 6-11-2012]
Section 6(1) of the RTI Act
The issue was whether the applicant can extend the scope of his RTI application at the Appellate stage.
Vide RTI application dated 6-9-2010, the appellant had sought comments of the public authority to a complaint which had been filed by him earlier on 11-5-2010 regarding alleged misuse of government vehicles by Smt. C. Chandrakanta, the then Joint Commissioner, Income Tax Range-IV, Jalandhar and other unlawful activities.
Before the CIC, the applicant submitted that he had sought to know whether any enquiry was conducted regarding leaving of the headquarters by Smt. C. Chandrakanta without prior permission from a competent authority. The CPIO had responded that no enquiry was conducted. The AA in his order stated that the appellant had not sought any reasons for not initiating any action in his RTI. As such the order of the CPIO was justified. The appellant insisted that the public authority should provide him the reasons. In support of his submission he quoted CIC order dated 11-9-2008 – Smt. Sarla Rastogi vs. ESIC.
In hearing before CIC, the appellant submitted that in response to his query as to whether any enquiry was conducted in regards to the leaving of headquarters by Smt. Chandrakanta, the CPIO responded that no enquiry was conducted. The appellant submitted that reasons for the same should be provided and referred to section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act as also CIC decision in the case of Smt. Sarla Rastogi vs. ESIC (Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2008/01106 dated 11-9-2008). The AA had upheld the decision of the CPIO on the grounds that in his RTI, the appellant has not sought reasons.
Decision:
The Commission observed that the CPIO had replied to the specific queries raised in the RTI by the appellant. With the said reply, the query of RTI application is satisfied. There is no provision to raise subsequent questions as an extension of the RTI query, as sought by the appellant in his first appeal. Hence, the Commission does not find any merit in the appeal. The case is disposed of. [R.K. Mahajan vs Income Tax Department, Jalandhar: CIC/DA/A/2011/0001476/RM: decision dated 7-6-2012]
RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005
The Commission decided that it was in agreement with submissions of the appellant that the application fee sent by him in favour of Accounts Officer, DGIT, New Delhi, should not have been returned and the CPIO was not correct, in asking the appellant to redeposit the application fee in favour of ZAO, CBDT, New Delhi. Rule 3 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 stipulates that the amount is payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority.
Decision:
The Commission directs the public authority to ensure that in the future, the application fee sent in the name of Accounts Officer is not returned. DoPT orders issued on 5-12-2008 (OM No. F.10/9/2008-IR) shall be brought to the notice of all concerned officials handling RTI matters. Insofar as the RTI request is concerned, the Commission sees no reason to interfere with the order of the CPIO/AA.
[Nitesh Kumar Tripathi vs DGIT (Vigilance), New Delhi: CIC/DS/A/2011/002840/RM: decision dated 21-9-2012]
