CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/C/2007/00475
Dated, the 27th January, 2009.
Complainant : Ms.Sarita R. Hakki
Respondents : Income Tax Department
In response to Commission’s notice dated 03.12.2008, this matter came up
for hearing on 14.01.2009. Complainant was absent when called, while the
respondents were represented by Md.Kaleemulla Khan, Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax & CPIO, Bangalore.
2. The present complaint before the Commission is against deemed refusal
of complainant’s RTI-application dated 07.06.2007 by the CPIO and, the
first-appeal dated 23.07.2007 by the Appellate Authority.
3. Respondents’ explanations contained in their written-submission before
the Commission, dated 23.05.2008 are as follows:-
“2. The complainant, Smt.Sarita R. Hakki, Dharwad had initially filed
an application under RTI Act in the office of the Commissioner of Income-
tax, Hubli on 08.06.07. Since the matter primarily related to the transfers
and postings of Officers which is effected by the office of the Chief
Commissioner of Income-tax (CCA), Bangalore, the application was
forwarded by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubli to the Chief
Commissioner of Income-tax(CCA), Bangalore on 14.06.2007. In the
meantime, the applicant filed a fresh application dated 19.06.07 directly
before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CCA), Bangalore on
22.06.07 seeking information along with same lines. Thereafter, CPIO’s
order dated 03.07.07 was passed following which an appeal under the
RTI Act was filed on 01.08.07 before the Chief Commissioner of Income-
tax(CCA), Bangalore. The order u/s 19(6) of the RTI Act was passed by
the Appellate Authority on 11.09.07.
3. It is brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Commission that vide
letter No.Case No.CIC/AT/C/2007/00475 dated 10.03.08, the undersigned
was directed to appear before the Commission on 30th April, 2008 at 4.00
PM for a hearing on the complaint filed by Smt.Sarita R. Hakki. In
AT-27012009-01.doc
Page 1 of 4
compliance, the undersigned had appeared before the Commission on the
appointed day and filed a written submission.
4. From the above, it is clear that the applicant had sought the
information from one authority, i.e. the Commissioner of Income-tax,
Hubli who in turn had forwarded the application to the Chief
Commissioner of Income-tax (CCA), Bangalore. At the same time, the
applicant had also filed an application before the Chief Commissioner of
Income-tax (CCA) asking for the same information which was duly
furnished. Hence, the question of the information not being furnished by
the Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubli does not arise. Under these
circumstances, it is prayed that the application filed by the complainant,
both in respect of the so called non furnishing of information by the
Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubli as well as against the order of the
Appellate Authority u/s 19(6) of the RTI Act, 2005 dated 11.09.2007 may
be treated as dismissed.”
4. The petitioner’s rejoinder reads as follows:-
“The CPIO, in his letter dt. 23.5.08, received by me on 28.05.2008, has
stated that my letter dt. C.I.T., Hubli dt. 08.06.2007, and my letter to
CCIT(CCA) Bangalore dt. 19.06.2007 are along the same lines and
information furnished vide letter dt. 3.7.07 may be taken as compliance.
However, no such statement is made in the order dt. 3.7.07.
It is my earnest request that CIC may please peruse both the letters and
see whether the information requested in both letters is same. The
information sought by both the letters is different except the copy of
transfer policy. Then how one can taken the 03.07.2007 letter as
compliance? For example. In my letter to CIT, Hubli, I sought(1) Copy of AC/DC transfer order dt. 01.06.2007.
(2) Recommendations of CIT, Hubli on transfer applications (format)
of Hubli officers.
(3) Recommendations of CIT, Hubli on request applications, (who is
not supposed to give format)None of the above are sought in my letter dt.19.06.2007. Therefore, it is
not correct to consider 03.07.2007 order as compliance.
The remarks made appears [sic] to have been without going through the
letter properly. If one has read it properly no such statement was
possible. If it is taken that reply on reading the letter properly, the
AT-27012009-01.doc
Page 2 of 4
authority is trying to mislead the CIC terming that ‘same information’
was sought. To quote from CPIO’s letter dt.23.05.2008, in para 4.
‘……….. At the same time, the applicant has filed an application before
the CCIT(CCA) asking for the same information which was duly
furnished…..’
In view of the above, the letter [sic] contentions are not tenable and
appeal is maintainable and require adjudication.”
5. It is accepted by the respondents that they had not furnished a reply to the
petitioner corresponding to the complainant’s above-mentioned RTI application.
It is their submission, however, ⎯ contested vigourously by the petitioner ⎯ that
they erroneously believed that the information requested by the petitioner
through this RTI-application had been provided to her through a reply which was
given to her in respect of another application filed by her before the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Bangalore. Complainant claims that the
two RTI-petitions made by her were not identical and she seems to be right. It is,
however, noted that the respondents’ decision to respond to only one of the two
RTI-applications was based upon not on their precise knowledge about what
those two petitions contained, but on their erroneously believing that they were
likely to be identical petitions. Respondents ought to have exercised greater
diligence in attending to these two petitions according to its actual content and
not on the basis of their surmise that both were identical in content.
6. However, since the deemed refusal in the present case seems to have been
occasioned by the respondents’ belief that the requested information had been
disclosed to the petitioner, the matter falls within the reasonable cause provision
of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. It is, therefore, not proposed to draw any
penalty proceeding against the respondents.
7. Nonetheless, respondents are directed that the requested information in
this RTI-application of the complainant must be disclosed to her within one week
of the receipt of this order free of charge. Should the complainant wish to
inspect the documents or files related to her RTI-query, she shall be facilitated in
carrying out inspections. No charges will be levied on her for copies of the
documents which she may wish to have from the files she would inspect.
8. Respondents are warned to be careful in dealing with RTI-matters and
should not allow their actions to be conditioned by their vague beliefs and
surmises. Any recurrence of such episode in future shall be viewed seriously.
9. Complaint directed to be closed.
AT-27012009-01.doc
Page 3 of 4
10. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-27012009-01.doc
Page 4 of 4