CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066, website:cic.gov.in
****
Appeal No.:-CIC/CCITJ/A/2017/142296-BJ
Appellant : Mr. T. C. Gupta
Respondent : CPIO & I.T.O, (Hqrs.),
O/o. Principal Commissioner of Income
Tax-1, Jodhpur
Date of Hearing : 03.10.2017
Date of Decision : 03.10.2017
Date of filing of RTI applications 09.12.2016
CPIO’s response 05.01.2017
Date of filing the First appeal 09.01.2017
First Appellate Authority’s response 13.02.2017
Date of diarised receipt of second appeal by the 21.06.2017
Commission
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought permission to inspect and
take extracts/ copies of correspondence files relating to casual labours from
01.01.2012 to 31.03.2013 for 30 minutes on agreed date and time.
The CPIO and ITO (HQ), O/o the Pr. CIT-I, Jodhpur stated that from March
2012 to February 2013 no daily wage worker was working in their office.
Accordingly there was no separate record maintained in their office.
Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA.
The FAA, vide its detailed order dated 13.02.2017 stated that the facts of the
appeal were similar to an earlier appeal decided on 18.10.2016 except that
the period of inspection was curtailed. The Appellant had neither specified
the casual labour nor the authority with whom the correspondence was
required to be inspected. Furthermore, the Appellant had not specified the
nature of correspondence and therefore the request for inspection was a
roving request without any purpose. It was also stated that the request for
roving inspection of records contained no general public purpose but was
submitted only for the furtherance of professional interest of the Appellant.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Page 1 of 4
Appellant: Mr. T. C. Gupta (Retired Joint Commissioner-Customs)
through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Vishnu Dutt Purohit, ITO (HQ), Jodhpur and Mr. S. M.
Joshi, DCIT (HQ) O/o the CCIT, Jodhpur through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that
no satisfactory information was provided to him in the matter, till date. In
its reply, the Respondent referred to the reply of the CPIO dated 05.01.2017
and submitted that from March 2012 to February 2013, no daily wage
worker had worked in their office. Hence no record was maintained by them.
It was further stated that from March 2013, whenever verified vouchers were
received from the concerned AO then payment was made to the daily wage
worker accordingly. It was also submitted that all fully vouched contingent
bills for payment of daily wage workers were clubbed with several other
payment related matters of the Public Authority and therefore the inspection
of the relevant files was unwarranted
The Commission observed that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005
only available and existing information can be provided. In this context, a
reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay Civil Appeal No. 6454 of
2011, wherein it had been 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
confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”
Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of 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,
Page 2 of 4
orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such
opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed.”
The Commission however observed that the Appellant had sought
information on pertinent issues related to disclosure of information
regarding employment of casual labourers which should be proactively suo
motu disclosed on the website of the Public Authority in compliance with
Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 since it was an issue concerning the public at
large who would want to be informed about the receipts and expenses made
out of Government Exchequer to casual labours and to ascertain whether
the payments were actually made to the labourer legally entitled to receive
such payment. This would in turn develop an informed citizenry vital for
functioning of the democracy. It is also felt that suo motu disclosure of such
details by the Public Authority would in turn promote openness and
transparency within the Public Authority i.e., the Income Tax Department
which has a critical role in curbing corruption and promoting accountability.
In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 (CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay & Ors) wherein it had been observed as under:
“37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right
to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of
responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and
accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly
and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary
information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to
securing transparency and accountability in the working of public
authorities and in discouraging corruption”
The Commission also observed that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruling in
WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information
Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as
under:
“16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and
to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the
explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating
the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public
announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore,
clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the
information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the
said section should be made available to the public and specifically
through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty
bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish
the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so
that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain
the information.”
Page 3 of 4
The RTI Act, 2005 was enacted to ensure greater and effective access of
information and progressive and meaningful participation of all concerned.
The preamble also inter alia states "... democracy requires an informed
citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning
and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their
instrumentalities accountable to the governed." The Commission finds that
every action of the government must be actuated in public interest and for
the larger public good.
As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I.
and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of
2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on
16.12.2015:
“The ideal of ‘Government by the people’ makes it necessary that people
have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow
of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in
public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a
condition for ‘open governance’ which is a foundation of democracy.”
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the
parties, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the
matter. The Respondent Public Authority is however advised to suo motu
disclose on its website all available information pertaining to payment of
wages to casual labours in compliance with Section 4 (2) of the RTI Act,
2005.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(Bimal Julka)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das)
Deputy Registrar
Page 4 of 4
