9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected to release the information sought, on the basis of the materials available and collected with them, within two weeks. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The petitioner sought the following reliefs : (a) issue directions to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to furnish information, (b) to order an inquiry against respondent's Nos. 2 and 3 for not implementing the Right to Information Act properly, (c) to impose penalties and disciplinary action against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 20 of the RTI Act, and (d) to award cost of proceedings to be recovered from respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 6. The CIC, on 8th May, 2006 allowed the second appeal and set aside the rejection of information, and the exemption Clause 8(1)(j) cited by respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The CIC further held that - as the investigation on TEP has been conducted by DIT (Inv), the relevant report is the outcome of public action which needs to be disclosed. This, therefore, cannot be exempted u/s 8(1)(j) as interpreted by the appellate authority. Accordingly, DIT (Inv) is directed to disclose the report as per the provision u/s 10(1) and (2), after the entire process of investigation and tax recovery, if any, is complete in every respect. 7. The petitioner contends that the first respondent was correct in allowing disclosure of information, by holding that Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 10. The second and third respondents, pursuant to an order of this Court aver that the petitioner misconstrued letters sent by the income-tax officer and the Director General of Income Tax in relation to the fact that the investigations are complete. They submit that although there was a preliminary investigation undertaken by the income-tax officer, Delhi and a report was submitted pursuant to that, the Assessing Officer has issued notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the investigation and procedures under the Assessing Officer are yet to be completed. Learned Counsel, Sonia Mathur, appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that, as per the directions of the CIC, the information sought would be supplied after 31st March, 2008, after completion of investigation and recovery. 11. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, assures, by Article 19, everyone the right, 'to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers'. In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India and Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors. [(1995) 2 SCC 161] th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information. 14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in their terms; there is some authority supporting this view (See Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta [(2005) 2 SCC 201]; B.R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2001) 7 SCC 231] and V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy [(1977) 3 SCC 99]. Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sclosed only after recovery was made.
16. 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.
17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondents in releasing the information sought. However, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they mala fidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.
18. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. In the peculiar circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order on costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
