के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi – 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCITL/A/2017/603842-BJ +
CIC/DGITL/A/2017/603958-BJ
Mr. Yogi M P Singh
….अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS बनाम
1. CPIO
ITO, Ward – 3(2), Income Tax Department
Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(2)
Mahant Shivala, Mirzapur – 231001
2. CPIO
Asst. Director of Income Tax (I&CI) (HQ)
Office of the Director General of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation) Ground Floor, Ara Centre, E – 2, Jhandewalan Extn.
New Delhi – 110055
…ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.09.2019
Date of Decision : 03.09.2019
Date of RTI application 18.12.2016
CPIO’s response 06.01.2017/ 19.01.2017/
23.01.2017/
29.03.2017
Date of the First Appeal 28.05.2017
First Appellate Authority’s response 19.06.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
O R D E R
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the status of his grievance (registration number as mentioned in the RTI application), the details of action taken on his grievance by the concerned staffs of Public Authority; the maximum duration taken by the department to redress the grievances by the citizenry; the copy of report which was made available by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad to CBDT (Income-tax) and issues related thereto.
The CPIO DGIT, Intelligence and Criminal Investigation, New Delhi, vide its letter dated 06.01.2017, transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, O/o the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CCA), Kanpur, for necessary action at their end. Subsequently, the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (P & V) / CPIO, UP (West) & Uttrakhand, Kanpur, vide its letter dated 19.01.2017, transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, UP(East), Lucknow. Thereafter, the CPIO, O/o the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lucknow, vide its letter dated 23.01.2017, transferred the application to the CPIO, O/o the Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Varanasi. Furthermore, the ITO, Ward 3(2), Mirzapur, vide its letter dated 29.03.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 19.06.2017 while concurring with the response of the CPIO, directed him to conduct enquiry as per the provisions of the IT Act, 1961.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Yogi M P Singh through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Ganesh Lal, CPIO & ITO, Mirzapur through VC; and Mr. Deepak Kumar, Inspector, New Delhi and Mr. Devinder Kumar, ITO, New Delhi;
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that clear and precise point wise information was not provided by the Respondent, till date. He specifically referred to points 02, 03 and 04 of the RTI application and submitted that the information relating to the maximum time period to redress a grievance, the copy of the report sent by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad to CBDT (Income Tax) and name and designation of the staff dealing with his grievance petition was not provided, despite the fact that his RTI application was transferred to several authorities. In its reply, the Respondent (New Delhi) submitted that since the RTI application did not pertain to their jurisdiction, it was transferred to the O/o the CCIT (CCA) Kanpur vide letter dated 06.01.2017 for further necessary action which was subsequently transferred to the CPIO, O/o the Pr. CIT, UP (East), Lucknow vide letter dated 19.01.2017. The Respondent (Mirzapur) submitted that vide letter dated 29.03.2017, the CPIO and ITO, Ward 3 (2),Mirzapur provided a point wise response to the Appellant informing him about the action taken on his grievance petition to the Appellant. However, on being queried by the Commission regarding the information on the remaining points, the Respondent feigned ignorance and submitted that the same was not available with them. On being further questioned whether the points regarding which the information was not available with them were transferred to the concerned jurisdictional authority or not, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondent (Mirzapur).
The Commission observed that the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates time limits in its various provisions relating to responding to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first appeal to ensure that a culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of the democracy gets established. This was recognised by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:
“14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an “openness culture” among state agencies, and a wider section of “public authorities” whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy.”
In the present instance the transfer of RTI application u/s 6 (3) of the Act had not been made by the Respondent (Mirzapur). Even assuming that the application was transferred, it cannot be said that the transferring authority can be completely absolved of his duties and responsibilities as CPIO thereafter. In this context, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
“ 7“it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken”. The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act.”
8………….The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for nondisclosure.”
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission instructs the FAA and Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2, Allahabad having additional charge of Range 3, Mirzapur to inquire into the matter and submit its report to the Commission under intimation to the Appellant and furnish a point wise response to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु काुुु )
(Information Commissioner) (सचू ना आयुूूू ुुु )
Authenticated true copy
(अभ माणत स यापत त)
(K.L. Das) (के.एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ kl.das@nic.in दनांक / Date: 03.09.2019
Copy to:
1. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2, Allahabad and Range 3, Mirzapur, Aayakar
Bhawan, 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad- 211001