CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000378 & 379 both dated 12.4.2010
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta
Respondent - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
Income Tax Department
Date of hearing: 4.6.2010
Decision announced: 22.6.2010
Facts
:
These are two appeals moved by Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta of Shalimar
Bagh, New Delhi.1) File No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000378
In this application Shri Gupta has sought the following information from
CPIO, ITAT on 9.12.09:“1. Inspection of all the records related to Appeal DC 11(1) vs.
Escorts Ltd. A.Y. 2001-02, Ref: Appeal ITA No. 1562/Del/05
(other than Escorts Ld. A. Y. 2001-02 appeal ITA No.
567/Del/05-Bench G).2. Inspection of all the records related to ITA No. 3794/Del/2008.
Assessment Year 2005-06. – M/s Escorts Heart Institute &
Research Centre Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Central Circle-3. ITA No. 37/Del/2009 – A.Y 2005-06 – Dy. CIT
Central Circle-3, vs. M/s Escorts Hearts Institute & Research
Centre Ltd. decided on dated: October 9, 2009.3. Kindly provide the form, procedure, rules through which third
parties are allowed to become intervener. As allowed in ITA
No. 3370/Del/08 M/s Concept Creations, Pan/GIR No. AAAFC
6948 H vs. Addl. CIT Range, Panipat – A.Y. 2005-06. This is
Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005 information.4. Kindly provide the procedure (and to whom to deposit and form of
request letter and deposit challan etc.) for the Inspection and copying fee (for
inspection and copies as per ITAT Rules).5. Inspection of all records related to Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005
compliance. Kindly provide also provide the procedure and to whom
vigilance complaints too be made for ITAT.6. Kindly provide copy of documents including note sheet / orders
pointed out at the time of inspection for above requests.”1
To this Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta received a response dated 1.2.10 from
CPIO Shri R.P. Tolani, Judicial Member, ITAT informing him as follows:“At the time of hearing you also requested for inspection of office
manual which was provided immediately and same has been
acknowledged by you.2. Your attention is invited to Para 3 & 4 of letter dated
8.1.2010 in which you are requested to establish larger public interest
which will be served by your application vis-à-vis 3 rd party in terms of
provisions of RTI Act, 2005.3. During the course of hearing you did not raise any
contention in respect of larger public interest as held by Hon’ble Central
Information Commission in the case of P. Rajan vs. Office of the CIT,
Kottayam, Kerala which is mentioned in our letter dated 8.1.2010.
Therefore it is held that you have failed to establish larger public interest
as contemplated in the said letter regarding 3rd party. Replies to rest of
your queries have been given to you vide letter dated 8.1.2010. As
requested at the time of hearing the inspection of office manual has also
been provided to you. Therefore, your application stands disposed of
accordingly.”Aggrieved, Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta moved an appeal registered as
Appeal No. RTI/Appeal/02A/2010 in which Appellate Authority Shri
Veerabhadrappa, Vice President issued orders on 16.3.10 which is discussed
together with the orders on the following application since both were covered by
the same order.2) File no. CIC/LS/A/2010/000379
By this application Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta produced a proforma
seeking information on various RTI applications regarding ITAT judicial case
inspection / copies allowed by ITAT from 1.1.06 to 31.11.09 and on this basis
sought the following information:“3. Inspection of all the case records of the cases mentioned above.
4. Kindly provide copy RECORDS pointed out at the time of
inspection.”
To this, Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta received a response on 1.2.10 from
CPIO Shri R. P. Tolani informing him as follows:
2
“During the course of hearing you did not raise any contention in
respect of larger public interest as held by Hon’ble Central
Information Commission in the case of P. Rajan vs. Office of the
CIT, Kottayam, Kerala which is mentioned in our letter dated
8.1.2010. Therefore, it is held that you have failed to establish
larger public interest as contemplated in the said letter. Replies to
your queries have been given to you vide letter dated 23.12.2009.
As you have requested at the time of hearing, the inspection of
office manual has been provided to you immediately and same has
been acknowledged by you. Therefore, your application stands
disposed of accordingly.”
Upon this, Shri R. K. Gupta moved his appeal before Shri G. E.
Veerabhadrappa, Vice President, ITAT, registered as appeal No. RTI/02/2010. In
his detailed order of 16.3.2010, which was applied in both cases, Shri
Veerabhadrappa has come to the following conclusion:
“6. I have heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who was present. I
have also heard Shri R. P. Tolani, CPIO and Shri K. K.
Singh, CAPIO who were also present. Shri R. K. Gupta filed
a letter, confining his arguments, seeking inspection of the
judicial records. But as already stated, bound by the
decision of the CIC in applicant’s own case and for the
reasons already discussed in my order dated 22.1.2010 in
Appeal No. RTI/Appeal/07/2009, pertaining to his case, I am
unable to accede to his request. At the cost of repetition, it
may again be stated that the request for inspection of judicial
record, not pertaining to his case cannot be permitted.
6.1 It must be appreciated that the appellant cannot go on
misusing the provisions of the RTI Act to create unnecessary proceedings
before the authorities who are expected to do the important government
work. To my experience, what I found in the applications and appeals by
Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta is that he is missing the provisions of RTI Act to
harass the authorities under the said Act in the name of doing certain
public good work, which is known only to his imaginations. Exactly, for
this reasons the CPIO wanted to know the larger public interest in seeking
the information again and again on this issue. In my view, the learned
CPIO has correctly appreciated the facts of the case in the light of the
conduct of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who pretends to be a whistle
blower, but a nuisance maker creating nuisance to the public authorities
under the shelter of RTI Act. He may be using these provisions just as a
black mailing or arms twisting tactics. After all, purpose of the RTI Act is
noble and cannot be misused by persons of this nature, wasting public
money and the time of the authorities who are supposed to do other
important government works.
3
6.2 I find from my records, that it is a glaring example of
bombarding RTI applications, as observed by the CIC in the case of S. P.
Goyal vs. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Ludhiana dt. 24.1.2008, CIC
Digest (Vol.II) 2014 (984). It is also a case of seeking more or less similar
information repeatedly. It is in this context that we must appreciate the
order of the CPIO. It is also a case of harassment of public authority, as
observed by the CIC in the case of Abdul Rafique vs. North Western
Railways, Ajmer dt. 25.1.2008, CCC Digest (Vol.II) 2019 (989); and K.
Gopinath vs. AICTE, UGC & JNTU dt. 15.12.2006, CIC Digest (Vol.I)
1086. Further, it is not open for the applicant to prescribe a table under
which the information requires to be given to him, when the department
has not maintained the information in that manner. After all under the RTI
Act, he is entitled to the information in the manner it exists.
6.3 In my opinion, the CPIO, after appreciating the conduct of
Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta in putting multiple applications on the same
issue, rightly put across to him to establish the larger public interest, which
he failed to establish before him, nor did he take any interest to establish
such noble purpose before me. As far as judicial record is concerned, it
was made clear to him that he is not entitled being a stranger and simply a
nuisance maker. As regards the RTI records of the CPIO, Delhi, most of
the applications are by him only. At first, he wanted copies of all the RTI
applications. When it was pointed out that majority of applications are
only by him, he withdrew in relation to his applications but insisted for
inspection of applications of other applicants. I am of the view that
providing copies of those third parties will only result in interference of
privacy of the third party and may cause prejudice to their interests, who
sought information from the Tribunal. I, therefore, justify the order of the
CPIO, who refrained providing information of third parties to stranger,
which may give rise to multiple proceedings against the Tribunal by
different information seekers. In other words, the Tribunal will be entering
into unnecessary litigation over the issues. Exactly for this reason, in my
view the CPIO rightly demanded from him the larger public interest, in
seeking the information. I do not find any infirmity in the order of CPIO.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the applicant is dismissed.”
Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta’s prayer for relief in both the second appeals
brought before us is as follows:
‘1. Issue direction to give the information.
2. Penalize under section 20 for delay in providing information
and rejecting inspection on false pretext.
3. Direct Public Authority to maintained records as directed
under section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
4. Any additional payer as Respected Commissioner found
deem fit like compensation etc.”
4
The appeal was heard on 4.6.2010. The following are present:
Appellant
Shri Rakesh K. Gupta
Respondents
Shri Sunil Chopra, Chief Commissioner of IT Central
Shri Arun S. Bhatnagar, CIT (C-II), New Delhi.
Shri P. Ray Chaudhuri, Advocate
Shri V. M. Mahidhar, ACIT, CC-3, New Delhi.
Shri I. P. Bansal, Judicial Member, ITAT
Shri V S. Dhanda, ITO HQ (Exemptions)
Shri P Ray Chaudhuri Learned Counsel submitted that as decided by this
Commission in P. Rajan vs. Office of CIT Kottayam (Kerala), judicial information
cannot be provided unless it serves some larger public interest which Shri R. K.
Gupta has been unable to establish. Accordingly, ITAT, which keeps only
personal records, has not provided this information to anybody. Upon this, Shri
Rakesh Kumar Gupta responded by submitting that he has accepted the
response of CPIO to his first questions in application on File No.
CIC/LA/A/2010/000379, in which he has sought the list of applications allowed
by ITAT. However, in this case he has asked for information under Rule 33 of
ITAT rules, which is information on public hearing. This is not personal
information but commercial information, which ITAT is bound to provide.
Regarding the arguments of not disclosing judicial records, appellant Shri R. K.
Gupta invited our attention to his arguments in grounds for appeal, which are as
follows:
“All the records are for old period requested by the informer, for
which Sec. 8(1)(d) cannot be applied, the correct decision Rakesh
Kumar Gupta vs. CIT Decision No CIC/LS/A/2009/000647/SG/5887
-Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000647 dated 14.12.2009 is applicable
in above case. The cases under reference are not in camera
proceeding.”
We also received written submissions from both parties. In his submission,
CPIO Shri I. P. Bansal, Judicial Member-cum-CPIO, Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal has submitted as follows:
5
“10. It can be seen that applicant has sought inspection of all the
records relating to the appeals filed in the cases of above
concerns, which means that the applicant, if permitted to
have inspection, will have access to all information filed by
these partied which is highly personal in nature. The
information relating to them cannot be disclosed to the
applicant merely because the applicant merely because the
applicant consider such information to be public and not
personal information. That may be the belief of applicant
that it is public information but the third parties have
submitted such information to ITAT might be on the
understanding that the said information shall never be
disclosed to unrelated party as nobody will want to make
personal information as public.
11. If providing of such information to the public authority is done
with an understanding that they are providing their personal
information’s to public authority and such information is
being held by the public authority knowing full well that is a
personal information of the third parties which was not to be
ordinarily disclosed, then such information would be
construed as personal, unless there is evidence to the
contrary. The integrity of such information as personal
information is required to be respected by the Public
authority who held such information in trust. The applicant in
the present case was time and again requested to establish
public interest to seek such information belonging to other
parties which could not be established, hence CPIO was
right in rejecting such request and first appellate authority
also is well within its right to reject such appeal.
12. The contentions raised in the above part of this written
submissions are well supported by the decision of Central
Information Commission in the case of Ms. Raj Kumar W/o
Shri Hari Singh vide its order dated 25.3.2008 in F. No.
CIC/AT/A/2007/01339.”
He has then quoted extensively from the decision of this Commission in
this case and on this basis argued:
“13. In the aforementioned case the applicant had required from
the Income Tax Department to submit information that how
many charitable trust had applied for registration for a
particular period. She demanded the names and addresses
of all those charitable trust who had applied for registration
within that period. She also sought an information that how
many of them were denied registration and was asked to
furnish the names and addresses of those applicants. She
also demanded the copies of orders of all those charitable6
trust who were denied registration during that period an she
also demanded the information that what was the mode of
sending the orders pertaining to denial of information an
such information was held to be information in the nature of
personal information and CPIO was held right to withheld
such information u/s 80 (i) (j). The applicant was held to be
entitled to get the numbers of the Institution who had applied
for registration, the number of trust registration and the
numbers of the applicant whose request for registration was
rejected. In that case also the applicant was denied to have
even the name and address of the trust applicants and the
information regarding name and addresses was considered
to be an information in the nature of personal information
protected by the provisions of 80 (i) (j). For the sake of
convenience full copy of the said order is enclosed.
14. Reference can also be made to the decision of CIP in the
case of G. R. Rawal Meghaninagar vs. D. G. Of Income Tax
(Investigation Ahmedabad) (2008) 2 ID 82 CIC (Del.),
wherein the information seeker had sought the following
information: –
‘Tax payable as per decision of Settlement Commission in
the case of Wiprolene Plastics and tax paid by said
company.”
He has, therefore, pleaded exemption from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) which in
his view is also third party information. Finally Shri Bansal has rested his case
on exemption u/s 8(1)(j).
In his written petition Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta has submitted as follows:
“3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is a judicial
authority adjudicating the appeals either filed by the revenue
(Income Tax Department) or by the assesses. It is
constituted under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (I.T. Act). It is a
highest fact finding authority and appeal against its order can
only be filed before High Court if any substantial question of
law arises. During the process of filing of the appeals an
during the course of hearing of these appeals to establish
facts and to defend or lodge their cases certain details/
particulars are filed by the respective parties which
comprises the details of personal nature. Thus, details
comprises of various aspects relating to the commercial and
domestic details. For example the name of the parties with
whom such person has commercial dealing the copies of
7
contract entered into by him with various entities in the
course of his business expenses incurred under various
heads, household expenses the details of family members
and amount drawn by them in the nature of household
expenses the investment made by them in various assets
etc.”
With this he has attached a copy of the decision in ITA No. 762/Del./2009
(Asst. Year 2001-02) of M/s Big Apple Clothing vs. CIT New Delhi, together
with complaint made by him against Shri G. E. Veerabhadrappa, Vice President,
ITAT to Minister of Law, Justice & Company Affairs and Central Vigilance
Commission. Subsequently, we have received an e-mail from appellant Shri
Gupta summarizing his arguments as follows:
Objection is about judicial records decided the ITAT by invoking the
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 only.
My reply on the above objection is,
1. Public interest to curb corruption in administration of Justice. To
curb corruption in administration of Justice (public interest) all the
proceeding in the justice administration is Public. ITAT proceeding is
public as per ITAT Rule 33.
2. It is very strange, what is public information as per Rule 33 of
ITAT is stated to be covered under Section 8(1)(j), very absurd
augment. (Public commercial information used to decide public action
is stated to be confidential information and covered u/s Section 8(1)(j))
3. Decision cited by the L: D CPIO in his supports are not
applicable in the present case due to following reasons.
1. The information is public as per law of Country,
whereas in the cases cited by the opposite party,
information is not public as per law.
2. Similar organisation CESTATE (like the ITAT) had by
order declared all its record as public information and
giving the same in lesser period than the period given
under the RTI act, 2005. (In detail it is given page 13
to 14 of appeal)
3. The decision is subordinate to Delhi High Court/
Supreme Court of India, therefore Principal / rules
made by them (Superior Forums) has to be followed.
Basic Rules framed for interpreting the RTI Exemption by the
Delhi High Court in the Bhagat Singh case
(WP(C) No.3114/2007 Date of decision: December 03, 2007
BHAGAT SINGH (Petitioner) Versus CHIEF INFORMATION
8
COMMISSIONER and ORS. Central Information Commission File
Ref: Appeal No.35/IC (A)/06- F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00108 Dated,
the 8th May, 2006) to while applying the exemption clause.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Rule 1: As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment
seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold
the Government and its instrumentalities accountable to the
governed. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while
construing the provisions contained therein.
( From Para 12 Page 6 of the order)
Rule 2: Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the
rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section
8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore
is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in
manner as to shadow the very right itself.
( From Para 13 Page 6 of the order)
Rule 3 : A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure,
like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The
contextual background and history of the Act is such that the
exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the
authorities from the obligation to provide information,
constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided
by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be
construed in their terms; . ………
Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights
and approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the
rights under the Act, which is unwarranted.
( From Para 14 Page 6 of the order)
DECISION NOTICE
We cannot accept the argument that because the information held by
ITAT is in the form of only judicial record, such record is outside the purview of
the RTI Act. The Supreme Court of India and High Courts, all have rules for
disclosure of information both administrative and judicial. The only requirement
is that applicant must adhere to the particular rules in making an application
under the RTI Act. This Commission has also examined the rules made by the
competent authorities in these cases in light of the RTI Act and where required
has, under the authority vested in the Commission under sub sec. 5 of Sec. 25
and directions permissible u/s 19(8)(a) advised / directed the concerned Courts
to rectify such rules or has, as was usual in most cases, upheld these, as being
9
consistent with the RTI Act. In the case of ITAT, which is a part of Government,
the rules regarding the means of disclosure of information with regard to carrying
out the provisions of the Act and fees / costs to be charged are covered by rules
27(1) & 28 in both of which appropriate Government and the competent authority
are defined in sec. 2(a) & 2(b). Clearly ITAT will fall under the appropriate
Government described in Sec. 2(a).
This brings us to the question of whether the information sought by
appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta is to be treated as information, the
disclosure of which would amount to invasion of privacy. Sec 8(1) (j) is the clause
relied upon by respondents in refusing information. In the case of Ms. Raj Kumari
vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, in File No.
CIC/AT/A/2007/01339 dated 25th March, 2008, relied upon by respondents, we
have decided as follows:
” In overall consideration of the submissions made during hearing
and after considering the records and documents placed before
me, it is directed that respondents will disclose the statistical details
about the information requested by the appellant ― the numbers of
those who applied for registration as Trusts, the numbers of the
Trusts registered and the numbers of the applicants whose request
for registration was rejected― shall be provided to the appellant
within 2 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. No
information regarding the names and addresses of the applicant-
Trusts shall be disclosed to the appellant.”
In both the cases at present before us in appeal, what appellant Shri
Rakesh Kumar Gupta has sought is inspection of case files of third parties. The
decision of this Commission upon which appellant Shri Gupta has relied
CIC/LS/A/2009/000647 dated 14.12.2009, has been stayed. Earlier decisions of
this Commission like the one quoted above will clearly apply in this case. Equally
clearly, Sec 8 (1) (j) or indeed the state cannot apply to the following information
sought in File No CIC/LS/A/2010/000378:
7. Kindly provide the form, procedure, rules through which third
parties are allowed to become intervener. This is Section 4 of
RTI Act, 2005 information.
10
8. Kindly provide the procedure (and to whom to deposit and form of
request letter and deposit challan etc.) for the Inspection and copying fee (for
inspection and copies as per ITAT Rules).
9. Inspection of all records related to Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005
compliance. Kindly provide also provide the procedure and to whom
vigilance complaints too be made for ITAT.
10. Kindly provide copy of documents including note sheet / orders
pointed out at the time of inspection for above requests
Therefore although both appeals are, therefore, dismissed in regard to
inspection of files. However, with regard to the remaining information sought, the
above information suo moto disclosure of which is mandated by Sec 4 (1) (b)(vii),
(xv) and (d) of the Act will be provided to appellant Shri RK Gupta within ten
working days of the receipt of this Decision Notice. Appeal No .
CIC/LS/A/2010/000378 is allowed to this extent
Nevertheless, we must observe that the decision of the Appellate Authority
Shri G.E. Veerabhadrappa, Vice President IT quoted by us extensively above,
seems moved more by animosity in coming to his conclusions than in reliance
upon the law. We have indeed held in our earlier decision and again by means
of the present decision that disclosure of personal information will amount to
invasion of privacy unless a public interest is disclosed. But as decided by us in
at one of the cases, there is more than simply personal information that has been
sought. In the present two cases, appellant Shri Rakesh Gupta represents a
class of persons created by the ITAT itself to generate information regarding
delinquent activities of tax payers. In doing this, it cannot treat such a resource
as a mere pest but must accept responsibility for this requirement. It may be
kept in mind that this resource is sustained only by financial returns promised by
disclosure about delinquent tax payers to the Department. While encouraging
such an activity, the Income Tax Department cannot then seek to keep itself
aloof from the consequences. With these observations, the present appeals are
disposed of.
11
Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced on this twenty second
day of June, 2010 in open chambers. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
22.6.2010
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
22.6.2010
12