[HumJanenge] RTI blackmailers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 3057/2012
MR. BRIJ LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Moni Cinmoy, Adv.
versus
THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS
..... Respondents


O R D E R

21.05.2012

C.M. No. 6593/2012 (exemption)


Allowed subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P. (C) 3057/2012



The petitioner by this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India assails the order dated 01.07.2011 passed by the
Central Information Commissioner in Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2010/002004.

The petitioner moved a RTI application to the Commissioner of
Income Tax, ITO, Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Agra on 03.02.2010. In
this application the petitioner stated that he had moved a Tax Evasion
Petition (TEP), and sought the conduct of an enquiry on the known sources
of income of one Shri M. P. Singh. He stated that despite passage of
seven months, he had not received any response. Therefore, under the
Right to Information Act, he sought information with regard to the action
taken on the said complaint.


This query was responded to on 09.03.2010 by the Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax/CPIO, Agra. The CPIO declined the
application
of the petitioner seeking direct information with regard to the sources
of income of Shri M. P. Singh by placing reliance on Section 8(1)(j) on
the ground that it related to a third party and disclosure of the said
information was not in public interest. It appears that before disposing
of the application, the CPIO also issued notice to Shri M. P. Singh and
Shri M. P. Singh objected to disclosure of the information.

The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the first appellate
authority. The first appellate authority rejected the appeal on
29/30.04.2010, again placing reliance on Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The
petitioner then preferred a further appeal to the CIC, which has been
disposed of by the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Joint
Commissioner of Income Tax Range-5, Forozabad has declined to act on the
tax revision petition of the petitioner on the ground that the
information desired by the petitioner is six years old and is barred by
limitation as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. It is stated that
the information is not in custody of the CPIO. He also observed that Shri
M. P. Singh, against whom the complaint was lodged by the petitioner, is
presently assessed with ITO 3(iv), Mathura and the jurisdiction does not
lie with the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5, Firozabad. He
held that since no larger public interest is involved in the matter, the
petitioner?s appeal is disposed of.

The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that since the TEP
of the petitioner has not been actioned on account of the same being
barred by limitation, effectively, the information sought by the
petitioner has not been provided.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision
of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3114/2007 in support of his submission that
the respondent was neither provided information with regard to the
sources of income of Shri M. P. Singh nor conducted an
enquiry/investigation on the TEP of the petitioner.

A perusal of the decision in Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information
Commissioner and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 3114/2007 decided on 03.12.2007 shows
that in that case on the TEP action was taken, but the TEP investigation
report was not provided under the Right to Information Act. All that the
Court held was that the queriest was entitled to receive a copy of the
said TEP investigation report. In the present case, the Joint
Commissioner of Income Tax has held that the said TEP cannot be actioned
as it is barred by limitation. That, in my view, is sufficient
disclosure so far as the action taken on the TEP is concerned.

So far as the petitioner?s grievance with regard to non supply of
information with regard to sources of income of Shri M. P. Singh is
concerned, in my view, the CPIO correctly relied upon Section 8(1)(j) of
the Act to deny information to the petitioner. Section 8(1)(j) reads as
follows:-

?8(1)(j)

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:?



The information sought by the petitioner in relation to the sources
of income of Shri M. P. Singh is undoubtedly personal information,
disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public
interest of, or in relation to, Shri M. P. Singh. I, therefore, find no
merit in this petition. The same is dismissed.


VIPIN SANGHI, J

MAY 21, 2012

mb