2007 (12) TMI 412 - HC - Indian Laws

Right to Information - Held that - As is submitted by the petitioner he merely seeks access to the preliminary reports investigation pursuant to which notices under Sections 131 143(2) and 148 of the Income-tax have been issued and not as to the outcome of the investigation and reassessment carried on by the Assessing Officer. As held in the preceding part of the judgment without a disclosure as to how the investigation process would be hampered by sharing the materials collected till the notices were issued to the assessee the respondents could not have rejected the request for granting information. The CIC even after overruling the objection should not have imposed the condition that information could be disclosed only after recovery was made. In view of the foregoing discussion the order of the CIC dated 8th May 2006 in so far as it withholds information until tax recovery orders are made is set aside. The second and third respondents are directed to release the information sought on the basis of the materials available and collected with them within two weeks.

Issues Involved:
1. Partial quashing of the Central Information Commission's (CIC) order.
2. Direction for immediate supply of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
3. Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
4. Compliance with CIC's order and imposition of penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Partial Quashing of the CIC's Order:
The petitioner sought partial quashing of the CIC's order dated 8th May, 2006, which directed disclosure of information only after the completion of the investigation and tax recovery. The court noted that the CIC's order was facially supporting the petitioner's contention that the claim for exemption under Section 8(1)(h) was untenable. The court found it illogical to withhold information until the entire process of investigation and recovery was complete, especially since recovery in tax matters is time-consuming. The court set aside the CIC's condition of withholding information until tax recovery orders were made.

2. Direction for Immediate Supply of Information:
The petitioner requested the court to direct the respondents to supply the information sought immediately. The court directed the second and third respondents to release the information based on the materials available and collected with them within two weeks. The court emphasized that access to information under Section 3 of the RTI Act is the rule, and exemptions under Section 8 are exceptions that must be strictly construed.

3. Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act:
The second respondent initially rejected the petitioner's RTI application under Section 8(1)(j), stating that the information sought was personal and did not further public interest. The appellate authority also rejected the application, citing Section 8(1)(h), which exempts information that would impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders. The court observed that the orders of the respondents did not reflect any reasons why the investigation process would be hampered by the disclosure of information. The court held that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of information and that the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons for how the release of such information would hamper the investigation process.

4. Compliance with CIC's Order and Imposition of Penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act:
The petitioner filed a contempt petition before the CIC for non-compliance with its order and sought penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The court took serious note of the two-year delay in releasing information and the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority. However, the court found that the petitioner could not demonstrate mala fide denial of information by the respondents. Therefore, the court did not issue a direction to the CIC to initiate action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the second and third respondents to release the information sought within two weeks. The court set aside the CIC's condition of withholding information until tax recovery orders were made but did not order penalties or costs due to the lack of demonstrated mala fide intent by the respondents.

← Previous Next →