Appellant: TDS deduction on his FD for certain assessment years was sought as the TDS deducted as per Form 16A (provided by the PIO) & Form 26 AS obtained from IT department website are different - CIC: provide the copies of the challans to the appellant
19 May, 2014Information regarding the tax not being deposited with the IT Department by the respondent bank pertaining to appellant’s Fixed Deposit was sought - Appellant: incomplete information has been provided regarding the TDS deduction on FD account for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2010-11 as the TDS deducted in the Form 16A (provided by the PIO) and Form 26 AS obtained by him from the IT department website are different - CIC: PIO is directed to provide the copies of the challans (proof for the transfer made to IT Department by the bank) for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2010-11 to the appellant
ORDER
These three appeals earlier came up for hearing on 19.09.2013 when the Commission had passed three separate orders all dated 19.09.2013, interalia, directing the CPIO, Visakhapatnam Port Trust (Dr. Naresh Kumar) to show cause (in each case) why penalty should not be imposed upon him u/s 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act for prima facie denying the information to the Appellant with malafide intention and without any reasonable cause, thereby causing obstruction to the supply of information to the Appellant.
2. The observations made by the Commission (in its above mentioned orders) leading to the issuance of show cause notices to the CPIO are as follows:
In case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002045:
“6. On perusal of records, the Commission notes that the information sought by the Appellant can in no way be construed as information ‘personal’ to third party. All what the Appellant wanted to know from the Respondents as to what action they have taken on his representation dated 23.11.2011, and requested for copies of documents (like note sheet; remarks etc.) relating to action taken on said representation. Such information is decidedly disclosable and exemption given 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. is not applicable in such category of information.”
In case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002037
“6. On perusal of records, the Commission notes that the most of the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application is disclosable and that they do not fall under any exemption category as given in section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The CPIO, however, still denied the information to the Appellant completely without giving any reason as specified in section 8 of the RTI Act. This act of the CPIO is in contravention of section 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: of the RTI Act, which requires a CPIO to state reason as specified in section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act while rejecting the request made u/s 6(1) of the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority also failed to examine the Appellant’s request for information pointwise and summarily rejected the same claiming exemption 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 which is not tenable.”
In case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002273
“6. On perusal of records, the Commission notes that the information sought by the Appellant, barring the one i.e. copy of the remarks and file notings for each candidate by the Selection Committee, in his instant RTI application does not fall under the exemption category 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 the RTI Act as claimed by the Respondents. The reasoning of the Respondents that there is no larger public interest in disclosure of the present information also does not hold good in view of the fact that the requirement of ‘public interest’ is not warranted for disclosure of information, which is otherwise disclosable being an information not falling under the exemption category of section 8(1) of the RTI Act.”
3. Dr. Naresh Kumar, CPIO accordingly submitted his replies (to show cause notices) to the Commission vide his letters dated 30.10.2013. In these replies, the CPIO has reiterated his stand (which he had earlier taken in his replies to the Appellant’s RTI applications) that there was no larger public interest involved in the request of the Appellant and that therefore the same was rejected u/s 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. He also mentioned that: “VPT has followed the directions of the CIC at all times and never had any intention on the part of CPIO of AA (RTI) to flout to provisions of the RTI Act, in supplying the documents to the applicant. Moreover, VPT has been in the fore front when it comes to the implementation to the RTI Act, but unfortunately the appellant is abusing the RTI Act by making wild and reprehensive allegations against the officials by attributing corruption charges etc. on several occasions. Hence, information was not supplied and however replies are being issued within the time limit set by the Act. On the other hand there were several occasions that available information was supplied to the requested under RTI Act and the same was produced during the discussion with Commission.”
4. He also mentioned that “under the exemption provisions of RTI Act, 2005, the officers are not required to provide private or personal information which is exempted. As a matter of fact, information relating to employees in the Port are interse matters between the employer and employee in an institutions which are purely governed by respective services rules and regulations.” It is also his statement (in case no. 2273) that “…the information from point No. 1 to 9 & 11 is being supplied to the appellant as directed in the instant decision dt. 19.09.2013, though there was no public interest in his request and particularly, he was not the candidate in the above process.”
5. Thereafter, the matter was listed for 10.12.2013 with a direction to the CPIO, Dr. Naresh Kumar to appear before the Commission along with relevant documents. However, Dr. Naresh Kumar sought exemption from personal appearance.
6. On consideration of the submissions made by Dr. Naresh Kumar and on perusal of records, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no case of any willful and malafide denial of information to the Appellant by the CPIO. Therefore, the penalty proceedings initiated against the CPIO, Dr. Naresh Kumar is hereby dropped and case is closed.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Rednam Deepak v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002045, Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002037, Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002273