2024 (5) TMI 922 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking disclosure of broad outcome of the tax evasion petition filed by the petitioner - Right to Information Act - HELD THAT - The petitioner wanted to get information pertaining to tax evasion petition against Harmohan Sarangi and Himansu Sarangi (sent to office vide speed post ref R08002098781N dated 06.08.2017). But such information, in any way, do not indicate that the petitioner has made a query and sought for information with regard to disclosure of broad outcome of tax evasion petition under Annexure-2. Rather, the information sought for by the petitioner clearly reveals that the petitioner has tried to make a roving enquiry and for supply of those materials, which are not to be disclosed in view of the provisions contained under clause (i) of Section 8 (1) of the Right to Information Act. Therefore, the Public Information Officer rejected his claim, which has been confirmed by the first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority. This Court is of the considered view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in passing the orders impugned under Annexures-4, 5 and 6. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Writ petition to quash orders under Annexures-4, 5, and 6 and seek disclosure of outcome of tax evasion petition under Annexure-2.

Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash orders under Annexures-4, 5, and 6 and to obtain the broad outcome of a tax evasion petition filed under Annexure-2. The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, which was not provided, leading to the present petition. The Revenue contended that disclosing the broad outcome of the proceeding was contrary to the Right to Information Act. The petitioner's application under the Act requested specific information related to the tax evasion petition against certain individuals. The Court found that the petitioner's application did not seek disclosure of the broad outcome of the tax evasion petition as claimed, and the information requested was not permissible under the Act. Consequently, the Public Information Officer rejected the claim, which was upheld by the appellate authorities. As the petitioner's prayer for the broad outcome was not indicated in the application, the Court held that no illegality was committed by the authority in passing the impugned orders under Annexures-4, 5, and 6. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.