के ीय सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi – 110067
ितीय अपील संया / Second Appeal No. / िशकायतसंया / Complaint No.:-
CIC/DOREV/A/2017/157757-BJ
CIC/DGIIA/A/2018/100349-BJ
CIC/DGIIA/A/2018/100351-BJ
CIC/DGIIA/A/2018/100343-BJ
CIC/CCITA/C/2017/163051-BJ
CIC/CBODT/C/2017/181609-BJ
CIC/DOREV/C/2017/181501-BJ
CIC/DGIIA/A/2018/100338-BJ
CIC/DGIIA/A/2018/100354-BJ
CIC/CBODT/C/2017/169005-BJ
CIC/CBODT/C/2017/171701-BJ
CIC/CCITA/A/2017/171710-BJ

Mr. Prakash Ishwarbhai Patel

….अपीलकता
/Appellant /
….िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO &
DCIT (OSD), (Inv. IV)
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
Central Board of Direct Taxes
Room No 20, Ground Floor, E-2, Ara Centre,
Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi – 110055

2. CPIO
Office of the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.) HQ-1
First Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashram Road
Ahmedabad – 380009

3. CPIO
Office of the Pr. Director of Income Tax (Inv.)
Room No 532, 5th Floor
Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate
Surat – 395001

4. CPIO& ITO, Ward- 1(3) (1),

Office of the ITO, Room No. 303
3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan,
Race Course Circle, Vadodara -390007
5. CPIO & ITO (HQ) 1,
Page 1 of 13
 O/o The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Vadodara – 3, Room No. 210, 2nd Floor,
Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Circle,
Vadodara 390007

6. CPIO & DCIT (Hq.) (Adm),

O/o Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Baroda, 1st Floor, Annexe, Aayakar Bhawan,
Race Course Circle, Baroda 390007
…ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing : 20.11.2018

Date of Decision : 20.11.2018

ORDER

RTI – 1- File No. CIC/DOREV/A/2017/157757-BJ

Date of RTI application 29.05.2017

CPIO’s response 27/30.06.2017
and 11.07.2017
Date of the First Appeal 10.07.2017
First Appellate Authority’s response 04.08.2017
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.08.2017

FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 7 points (A to G) regarding the
action taken report by the department on the tax evasion petition, dated 06.02.2017 against Mr.
Rajnikant J. Patel, name of the investigating officer with contact details, whether the
investigation was complete or not and issues related thereto.
The CPIO and DCIT (OSD), Inv-IV, New Delhi, vide its letter dated 27/30.06.2017 transferred
the application to the CPIO, the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Ahmedabad.
Dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the FAA. Subsequently, the CPIO and DDIT (Inv) HQ0I,
O/o the GDGIT (Inv.), Ahmedabad vide its letter dated 11.07.2017 transferred the RTI
application to the CPIO, O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv.) Surat. The FAA, JCIT (OSD) Inv. IV, New
Delhi, vide its order dated 04.08.2017 while concurring with the response of the CPIO,
transferred the First Appeal to the O/o the DGIT (Inv.) Ahmedabad.
RTI No– 2- File No. CIC/DGIIA/A/2018/100349-BJ

Date of RTI application 20.10.2017

CPIO’s response 07.11.2017 /
08.11.2017
Date of the First Appeal 20.11.2017
First Appellate Authority’s response 14.12.2017

Page 2 of 13
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 02.01.2018

FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points (A to G) regarding a Tax
Evasion Petition (TEP) dated 07.02.2017, action taken by the Department on the above
mentioned TEP, name of the investigating officer with complete contact details and whether the
investigation had been completed or not, etc.
The CPIO and DCIT (OSD) (Inv. I), New Delhi vide its letter dated 07.11.2017 / 08.11.2017
transferred the RTI application to the DGIT (Inv.), Ahmedabad u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, JCIT (OSD),
(Inv.IV), vide its order dated 14.12.2017 while concurring with the response of the CPIO,
forwarded the first appeal to the O/o the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Ahmedabad for
disposal of first appeal as per the provisions of the Act. During the hearing, the Respondent
(Ahmedabad) informed that the TEP and RTI application were transferred to the O/o the Pr. DIT
(Inv.), Surat on 13.02.2017 and 17.11.2017, respectively.
RTI – 3 File No. CIC/DGIIA/A/2018/100351-BJ

Date of RTI application 24.10.2017

CPIO’s response 07.11.2017/
08.11.2017
Date of the First Appeal 20.11.2017
First Appellate Authority’s response 14.12.2017
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 02.01.2018

FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points (A to G) regarding a Tax
Evasion Petition (TEP) dated 19.05.2017, action taken by the Department on the above
mentioned TEP, name of the investigating officer with complete details and whether the
investigation had been completed or not, etc.
The CPIO and DCIT (OSD) (Inv. I), New Delhi vide its letter dated 07.11.2017 / 08.11.2017
transferred the RTI application to the DGIT (Inv.), Ahmedabad u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, JCIT (OSD),
(Inv.IV), New Delhi vide its order dated 14.12.2017 while concurring with the response of the
CPIO, forwarded the first appeal to the O/o the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.),
Ahmedabad for disposal of first appeal as per the provisions of the Act. During the hearing, the
Respondent (Ahmedabad) informed that the RTI application was transferred to the O/o the Pr.
DIT (Inv.), Surat on 17.11.2017. The Respondent (Surat) in turn informed that the RTI
application was transferred to the JDIT (Inv.), Vadodara.
RTI – 4- File No. CIC/DGIIA/A/2018/100343-BJ

Date of RTI application 16.10.2017

Page 3 of 13
CPIO’s response 07/08.11.2017
Date of the First Appeal 20.11.2017
First Appellate Authority’s response 14.12.2017
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 02.01.2018

FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points (A to G) regarding a Tax
Evasion Petition (TEP) dated 06.02.2017, action taken by the Department on the above
mentioned TEP, name of the investigating officer with complete contact details and whether the
investigation had been completed or not, etc.
The CPIO and DCIT (OSD) (Inv. I), New Delhi, vide its letter dated 07.11.2017 / 08.11.2017
transferred the RTI application to the DGIT (Inv.), Ahmedabad u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, JCIT (OSD),
(Inv.IV), vide its order dated 14.12.2017 while concurring with the response of the CPIO,
forwarded the first appeal to the O/o the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Ahmedabad for
disposal of first appeal as per the provisions of the Act. During the hearing, the Respondent
(Ahmedabad) informed that the said TEP was transferred to the O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Surat on
13.02.2017.
RTI – 5- File No. CIC/CCITA/C/2017/163051-BJ

Date of filing of RTI application 09.08.2017

CPIO’s response 10.08.2017,
14.08.2017,
21.08.2017 and
22.08.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority’s response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 08.09.2017

FACTS
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points (A to G) regarding a
Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) dated 29.05.2017, action taken by the Department on the above
mentioned TEP, name of the investigating officer with complete contact details and whether the
investigation had been completed or not, etc.
The CPIO and DCIT (HQ) (ADM), Vadodara, vide its letter dated 10.08.2017 transferred the
application to CPIO, The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Vadodara) who in turn vide letter
dated 14.08.2017 transferred the application to CPIO, The Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income
Tax, Range-1(3) (Vadodara). Then CPIO, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-1 vide
letter dated 21.08.2017 transferred the application to the CPIO, The Pr. Commissioner of Income
Tax, Vadodara-3 who in turn vide letter dated 22.08.2017 transferred the application to the
CPIO, The Pr. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Surat. Dissatisfied by the response, the
Complainant approached the Commission. During the hearing, the Respondent (Surat) informed
that the TEP and RTI application were transferred to the JDIT (Inv.), Vadodara.

Page 4 of 13
RTI – 6- File No. CIC/CBODT/C/2017/181609-BJ

Date of filing of RTI application 09.11.2017

CPIO’s response 23.11.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority’s response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 07.12.2017

FACTS
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding action
taken report by the department on the tax evasion petition dated 05.11.2016, name of the
investigating officer with complete contact details, whether the investigation was completed or
not, authority to which his TEP application was transferred etc.

The CPIO, vide letter dated 23.11.2017 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, O/o the
Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Ahmedabad under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for
necessary action. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the
Commission. During the hearing, the Respondent (Ahmedabad) informed that the RTI
application was transferred to the O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Surat on 28.11.2017.
RTI – 7- CIC/DOREV/C/2017/181501-BJ

Date of filing of RTI application 08.11.2017

CPIO’s response 21/23.11.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority’s response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 07.12.2017
FACTS
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 5 points regarding his TEP
dated 19.05.2017, action taken report by the department on the tax evasion petition and name of
the investigating officer with complete contact details, whether the investigation was completed
or not and issues related thereto.

The CPIO and DCIT (OSD) Inv- IV, CBDT, New Delhi, vide its letter dated 23.11.2017
transferred the application to CPIO, O/o the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Ahmedabad.
Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the Commission. During the hearing,
the Respondent (Ahmedabad) informed that the RTI application was transferred to the O/o the
Pr. DIT (Inv.), Surat on 28.11.2017.

RTI – 8 File No. CIC/DGIIA/A/2018/100338-BJ

Date of RTI application 13.10.2017

CPIO’s response 08.11.2017
Date of the First Appeal 20.11.2017
First Appellate Authority’s response 14.12.2017
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 02.01.2018
Page 5 of 13
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding action taken
report by the department on the tax evasion petition dated 05.01.2017, name of the investigating
officer with complete contact details, whether the investigation was completed or not, if not, then
approximate time for completion of the same and issues related thereto.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 08.11.2017 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, O/o the
Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Ahmedabad under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for
necessary action. Dissatisfied with the CPIOs response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The
FAA, vide its order dated 14.12.2017 forwarded the Appeal to the FAA, O/o the Director
General of Income Tax (Inv.), Ahmedabad for disposal as per the provisions of the RTI Act,
2005. During the hearing, the Respondent (Ahmedabad) informed that the TEP and RTI
application were transferred to the O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Surat on 12.01.2017 and 17.11.2017,
respectively.
RTI – 9- File No. CIC/DGIIA/A/2018/100354-BJ

Date of RTI application 18.10.2017

CPIO’s response 08.11.2017
Date of the First Appeal 20.11.2017
First Appellate Authority’s response 14.12.2017
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 02.01.2018

FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding action taken
report by the department on the tax evasion petition dated 06.02.2017, name of the investigating
officer with complete contact details, whether the investigation was completed or not, if not, then
approximate time for completion of the same and issues related thereto.

The CPIO, vide letter dated 08.11.2017 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, O/o the
Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Ahmedabad under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for
necessary action. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA.
The FAA, vide its order dated 14.12.2017 forwarded the Appeal to the FAA, O/o the Director
General of Income Tax (Inv.), Ahmedabad for disposal as per the provisions of the RTI Act,
2005. During the hearing, the Respondent (Ahmedabad) informed that the TEP and the RTI
application were transferred to the O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Surat on 13.02.2017 and 17.11.2017
respectively.
RTI – 10- File No. CIC/CBODT/C/2017/169005-BJ

Date of filing of RTI application 09.08.2017

CPIO’s response 15.09.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority’s response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 29.09.2017

FACTS
Page 6 of 13
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information 02 points regarding action taken
report by the department on the tax evasion petition dated 29.05.2017 and name of the
investigating officer with complete contact details.

The CPIO, vide letter dated 15.09.2017 transferred the RTI application to CPIO, O/o the Director
General of Income Tax (Inv.), Ahmedabad under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for necessary
action. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the
Commission. During the hearing, the Respondent (Ahmedabad) informed that the TEP and the
RTI application were transferred to the O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Surat on 16.06.2017 and
25.09.2017, respectively.

RTI – 11- File No. CIC/CBODT/C/2017/171701-BJ

Date of filing of RTI application 04.09.2017

CPIO’s response 26.09.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority’s response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 13.10.2017

FACTS
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding action
taken report by the department on the tax evasion petition dated 06.06.2017, name of the
investigating officer with complete contact details, whether the investigation was completed or
not, if not, then approximate time for completion of the same and issues related thereto.

The CPIO, vide letter dated 26.09.2017 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, O/o the
Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Ahmedabad under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for
necessary action. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the
Commission. During the hearing, the Respondent (Ahmedabad) informed that the RTI
application was transferred to the O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Surat on 10.10.2017 respectively.

RTI – 12- File No. CIC/CCITA/A/2017/171710-BJ

Date of RTI application 29.05.2017

CPIO’s response 10.07.2017
Date of the First Appeal 21.07.2017
First Appellate Authority’s response 16.08.2017
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 13.10.2017

FACTS

Page 7 of 13
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding action taken
report by the department on the tax evasion petition dated 06.02.2017, name of the investigating
officer with complete contact details, whether the investigation was completed or not, if not, then
approximate time for completion of the same and issues related thereto.

The CPIO, vide letter dated 10.07.2017 denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1) (j)
and 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the
FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 16.08.2017, upheld the CPIOs response. During the hearing,
the Respondent (Vadodara) informed that the TEP regarding which the information was sought
was transferred to Pr. DIT (Inv), Surat on 03.03.2017.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant / Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. J. K. Kale, CPIO & DCIT (HQ.), Vadodara, Mrs. Saramma Thomas, ITO
(HQ.), Vadodara , Mr. Nitin Baghla, ITO Ward 1 (3) (1), Vadodara, Mr. S. K. Virgincar, ADIT
(Inv.) (HQ.), Surat, Mr. Ashish Porwal, DDIT (Inv.) (Hq.-II) DGIT Ahmedabad
through VC; and Mr. Pankaj Khanna, DCIT (OSD) (Inv. IV), CBDT in person;

The Appellant / Complainant remained absent during the hearing. The Commission was in
receipt of a written submission from the Appellant / Complainant dated 19.11.2018, through e-
mail wherein it was submitted that he had been on a foreign trip and on coming back, he received
the notices for hearing and requested time to respond and therefore sought adjournment in the
matter. The DR (Registry of IC-BJ) in response, vide his email dated 19.11.2018, drew the
attention of the Appellant / Complainant to para 7 of the notice of hearing which clearly
mentioned that there would be no adjournment and since all the cases listed for hearing were of
the Appellant/ Complainant only, he was humbly requested to attend the hearing as scheduled. It
was noted by the Commission that enormous effort was also made by the Respondents in making
efforts for preparing for the hearing and setting apart time out of their other official
preoccupations and therefore it was decided not to adjourn the hearing. The Appellant /
Complainant is expected to appreciate the duties and functions performed by the Respondents
while discharging their official responsibilities.

The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent (DCIT (HQ) and
CPIO, Vadodara) (Complaint No. CIC/CCITA/C/2017/163051) dated Nil wherein it was stated
that the provision of Section 18 (1) (a) of the RTI Act was not applicable since the CPIO had
accepted the application and transferred it to the concerned CPIO for necessary reply. The
application was rightly transferred since the complaint referred to in the said RTI petition was
already transferred to the Pr. CIT-I, Vadodara. Information of the transfer of RTI application was
also provided to the Complainant. The application was also duly decided by the concerned CPIO
keeping in view the exemption granted to the DGIT (Inv.) vide notification dated 27.03.2008
under Section 24 of the RTI Act. Further, the exemption granted to the DGIT (Inv) was
confirmed by the Commission in File No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00083 dated 16.07.2008.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent (O/o the
Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Vadodara-3) dated 15.11.2018 (Complaint No.
CIC/CCITA/C/2017/163051) wherein while explaining the background of the case, it was
submitted that the Applicant had filed a TEP on 29.05.2017 before the Chief Commissioner of
Income-Tax, Vadodara. Though the Applicant had not mentioned the name of the case against
Page 8 of 13
whom he had filed TEP, on perusal of the records and from the date of TEP mentioned in the
application, it was presumed that the TEP had been filed against Vrundavan Agencies, Bela
Chambers, Vadodara and its partners Shri Hasmukhbhai T Ajmera and Ramesh Hargovind
Mehta. The Applicant had also filed another TEP dated 06.06.2017 in the same case in the O/o
the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Vadodara, which was also forwarded to their office. As
the said TEPs were not categorized, the same was forwarded to the O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Surat
vide office letter dated 04.07.2017 in view of the CBDTs letter dated 21.02.2017 and subsequent
instruction dated 23.09.2016 and as per the said instructions, TEPs received in offices other than
investigation wing, had to be forwarded to the CRU, under the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Surat for
registration. No reply after categorization had been received from the office of the Pr. DIT (Inv.),
Surat. As the TEPs were forwarded to the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Surat for further necessary action at
their end, the RTI applications filed were also forwarded to the O/o the Pr. Director of Income-
Tax (Inv.), Surat vide letters dated 22.08.2017 and 21.09.2017. A copy of the same was endorsed
to the Assessee with a request to make further correspondence in the matter with the Pr. DIT
(Inv.), Surat. Hence, there was nothing pending at their end.

On perusal of all the cases listed above, it was noted that the mechanism for dealing with the
TEPs within the public authority was vague and ambiguous. It was observed that majority of the
above mentioned Appeals / Complaints were filed to the CBDT (HQ) and that it was transferred
to DGIT (Inv.) Ahmedabad whereafter, successive transfers took place between Ahmedabad,
Vadodara and Surat due to their jurisdictional authority. The Respondent at Surat was however
ill equipped to reply on the subject matter under consideration and from his memory he could
only recall that most of the TEPs were rejected on the ground that the Investigation Wing of the
Public Authority was exempt under Section 24 r/w Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Due
to his lack of preparedness, the exact dates could not be stated. On drawing his attention to the
proviso under Section “8 (1) (j)” of the RTI Act, 2005 i.e., “Provided that the information which
cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”, no
satisfactory reply was offered. In all the matters, it was stated that the investigation was in
progress and that in view of the exemption clause cited above, no information could be furnished
at this stage. The DCIT (Inv.)- IV (OSD), CBDT, New Delhi informed the Commission that
consequent upon the completion of the enquiry proceedings, they do inform the applicants of the
broad outcome of the investigation. He also drew the attention of the Commission to a large
number of RTI applications filed in their office and utilization of time, energy and resources of
the Public Authority in merely handling such petitions thereby obstructing their normal
functioning.
The Commission at the outset observed that the DGIT (Inv) was included in the list of
organisation exempted from the purview of RTI Act, 2005 as per section 24 r/w second schedule
to the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a similar matter in Pr.
DIT (Inv) (1) vs. Ashwani Kumar, W.P.(C) 11591/2017 dated 22.12.2017 stayed the decision of
the Commission wherein a direction was issued to the Pr. DIT (Inv) (1) to inform the status of
the Petition/Complaint dated 12.02.2016 addressed to PMO, within a period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of this order. In the said matter, the Hon’ble High Court had also directed the
Department to file an affidavit unequivocally stating that the complaint in question is a matter
being investigated by the DGIT (Inv.) and not any other office of the IT Authority.
Moreover, the Commission also observed that in similar such matters where information was
sought from organizations exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 as per Section 24

Page 9 of 13
r/w second schedule of the RTI Act, the Hon’ble High Courts had inter alia in several decisions
held as under:

1. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CPIO, Directorate of Enforcement vs.
Mr. Bimal Kumar Bhattacharya WP (C) No. 345/ 2018 dated 19.02.2018 held:

“6. Plainly, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is contrary to the expressed
language of Section 24(1) of the Act. Section 24(1) of the Act expressly excludes
intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule of the Act from
the purview of the Act. Admittedly, the Directorate of Enforcement is included in the
Second Schedule to the Act and, thus, cannot be called upon to disclose information
under the provisions of the Act. The only exception carved out from the exclusionary
clause of Section 24(1) of the Act relates to information pertaining to allegations of
corruption and human rights violation. Undisputedly, the information sought for by the
petitioner cannot be categorized as such information.

7. The aforesaid question has also been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
in CPIO Intelligence Bureau v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi : 242 (2017) DLT 542, wherein this
Court held that an organisation specified in the Second Schedule of the Act was excluded
from the purview of the Act.

8. In view of the above, the petition and the pending application are allowed and the
impugned order is set aside. However, it is clarified that this would not preclude the
respondent from instituting any proceedings that he may be advised against M/s Thomas
Cook (India) Limited, if so, entitled in law.”

2. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in its decision in Palwinder Sondhi v.
Central Information Commission and Ors. WO (C) No. 13211 of 2010 dated 28.07.2010
had held as under:
“Be that as it may, in the context of information sought, I find no fault with the reasons
given in the impugned order for not supplying the information as the provisions of
Section 24(1) of the Act clearly provide that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to
the DRI, it being an organization established by the Central Government. Surely the
information sought does not relate to corruption and human right violations as is evident
from the nature of information sought. The order under the circumstances does not suffer
from arbitrariness.”

As regards providing the broad outcome of the TEPs filed, the Commission observed that the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors.,
W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 had held as under:

“6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the
complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding
respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him
and other such complaints.
Furthermore, the Commission in the decision of Shri Virag R. Dhulia v. Income Tax
Department, Kolkata in CIC/LS/A/2009/001179 dated 18.02.2010 had held as under:
Page 10 of 13
 “It is to be noted that investigation into a TEP cannot be allowed to go on ad-infinitum
and that it should be concluded in a reasonable time frame whereafter the broad outcome
thereof needs to be communicated to the appellant i.e. whether the allegations made in
the TEP are fully true, partially true or untrue. No further information needs to be
disclosed at this stage.”
The Commission also referred to the order dated 18/06/2013 (File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000926
Sh. Ved Prakash Doda v/s ITO) wherein it was held as under:
6. It has been the stand of the Commission that in respect of a tax evasion petition, once
the investigation is completed, the appellant should be informed the broad results of the
investigation, without disclosing any details. The appellant has a right to know as to
whether the information provided by him was found to be true or false.”
The Commission also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Central
Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO.
7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of
all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the
functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-
productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the
executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing
information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to
obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility
and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or
intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a
scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in
collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular
duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under
the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information
furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8
SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
“26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information
intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption,
falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing
on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act
will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand
for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests,
which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of
confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed
Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term “Public Interest” held:
Page 11 of 13
 “22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to
give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public
interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of
a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public
interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have
a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the
concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar
Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants
recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake
[Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)].”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal
(decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the
following texts for defining the meaning of “public interest’, which is stated as under:

“Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:

"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is
interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in
which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected."

In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :

Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights
or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may
be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government....”

The Appellant / Complainant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to
establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected
interests.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondents, the
Commission observed that there was a lack of clarity in handling of the TEP matters within the
jurisdictional authorities dealing with such cases which was evident from the frequent transfers
of the RTI / TEP petitions from one office to another as stated by the respective officials present
during the hearing. The Commission therefore, directs the DGIT (Inv.), Ahmedabad to re-
examine the matter and strengthen to evolve a robust mechanism for handling of TEPs and in all
Page 12 of 13
the cases listed above, the broad outcome of the investigation should be intimated to the
Appellant / Complainant as and when it gets completed.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic
conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the
relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.

The Appeals / Complaints stand disposed accordingly.

Bimal Julka (िबमल जुका)

Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)

K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)

Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ kl.das@nic.in

दनांक / Date: 20.11.2018

Copy to:

1- Secretary, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi – 110001

2- Chairman, CBDT, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block,

New Delhi – 110001;

3- Mr. Amit Jain, DGIT (Inv.) Ahmedabad, 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad 380009

Page 13 of 13