CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Room No. 305, 3rd Floor, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067, website:cic.gov.in

Appeal No.:-CIC/DGITV/A/2017/127925-BJ+
CIC/CCITD/A/2017/138836-BJ

Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta,

Respondent : Dy. DIT (Vig.) & CPIO,

Directorate General of Income Tax (Vig.),
New Delhi

Date of Hearing : 04.01.2018

Date of Decision : 05.01.2018

Date of filing of RTI application 01.11.2016 01.11.2016

CPIO’s response 30.11.2016 30.11.2016
Date of filing the First appeal 31.12.2016 02.01.2017
First Appellate Authority’s response 13.01.2017 13.01.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the 28.04.2017 07.06.2017
Commission

ORDER
FACTS:

RTI-I:

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points

regarding action taken on his complaint dated 28.06.2016, prescribed time
line to complete the investigation and the target time line for giving relief to
the Assessee and if no time limits have been prescribed, which is the rule of
law that allows open/unlimited timeline, without any maximum limit.

The CPIO vide its order dated 30.11.2016 denied the information stating
that on the basis of the complaint, a PSR file No PSR/SZ/102/16 had
already been opened in which investigation was under process. On other
queries, the information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,
2005 being related to a Third Party. For query no 03, the information was
again denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act while relying on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish R. Deshpande vs CIC &
Ors. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the
FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 13.01.2017 while concurring with the
reply of the CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) & 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act, 2005.

RTI-II:

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 09 points

regarding deadline prescribed for completion of investigation on complaints
received from CVC, if not prescribed rule/ law prescribing unlimited time for
investigation, whether complainant entitled to get information about action
Page 1 of 5
taken on his complaint and issues related thereto.

The CPIO and Dy. Dir. (Vig.) vide its letter dated 30.11.2016 provided a
point wise response denying information on points 04 and 05 under Section
8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the
Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA and Addl. Director General (Vig.),
vide its order dated 13.01.2017 concurred with the response of the CPIO.

HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Diwakar Singh, DDIT (Vig.);

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent

submitted that the reply of the CPIO/FAA had already been furnished to the
Appellant in both the cases. Explaining the background of the matter, it was
stated that the inquiry was in progress and details of inquiry could not be
shared citing the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Girish R.
Deshpande vs CIC & Ors in SLP(C) 27734/2012. The FAA had also
concurred with this view. In his written submission before the Commission
he enclosed a copy of the CVC circular no. 000/VGL/18 dated 23.05.2000
which entailed the schedule of time limits in conducting investigations and
departmental inquiries. It was informed that this Circular was in public
domain.

In this context, the Commission observed that under the provisions of the
RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held
by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be
provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of
the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnish
replies to hypothetical questions. The Commission further noted that
seeking opinions/advises/ reasons are not covered in the definition of
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:

“information” means any material in any form, including records,

documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases,
circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models,
data material held in any electronic form and information relating to
any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under
any other law for the time being in force.”

A reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8)
SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:

35..... “It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an

applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to
an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of
‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material
available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities
have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and
opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be
Page 2 of 5
 confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah

Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868
OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:

6. “....Under the RTI Act “information” is defined under Section 2(f)

which provides:

“information” means any material in any form, including records,

documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases,
circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models,
data material held in any electronic form and information relating to
any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under
any other law for the time being in force.”
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act
can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to
the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an
applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars,
orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such
opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed.”

7. “....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any

material which is not before him; or any information he could have
obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is
entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the
“public authority” under any other law for the time being in force. The
answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been
with the public authority nor could he have had access to this
information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons
as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before
him.”

Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint
Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3
April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
“Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including
records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases,
circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models,
data material held in any electronic form and information relating to
any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under
any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include
within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same
thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The
Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the
citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the
sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about
information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating
authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.”
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question
why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a
justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities
Page 3 of 5
 cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain
thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the
citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter
within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be
classified as information.”

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. The PFC Officers Association had
pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and
warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to
know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results
thereof.
7. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:- "8. Exemption from
disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxxxxxxxx (j)
information which relates to personal information the disclosure of
which has not 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 Central Information Commission appellate
authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information."
8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that in
order to claim exemption from disclosure of any information, the
essential conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) that it is personal
information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public
activity or interest; or (b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of
the privacy of the individual. However, even if the aforesaid conditions
are satisfied, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer or the Appellate Authority may disclose the
information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies
the disclosure of such information.
9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as
under: "Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the
Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is
enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a
State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case,
it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can
be considered as personal information that has no relationship with
public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance
Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of
corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of
misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter
Page 4 of 5
 of public interest.
11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose
to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to
his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD.
The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of
the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information
as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in
question.”

This Commission 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 Appellant was not present to contest the submission of the Respondent
or to substantiate his claims further.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the
Respondent, the Commission instructs the Respondent to furnish a copy of
the CVC Circular followed by them in all such matters and that the broad
outcome of the investigation should be intimated to him as and the inquiry
gets completed.

The Appeals stand disposed with the above direction.

(Bimal Julka)
Information Commissioner

Authenticated True Copy:

(K.L.Das)
Deputy Registrar

Page 5 of 5