IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.46486/2016(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
T.C. GUPTA, S/O SHRI GYAN CHAND, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O E-43, GOLDEN ENCLAVE, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 017.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI T. C. GUPTA (PARTY-IN-PERSON)) AND:
1. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HQ) O/O THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HQ) O/O THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. PRAMOD, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 10.2.2014 OF THE DCIT, ORDER DATED 11.3.2014 OF THE AA AND ORDER DATED 17.11.2015 OF THE CIC VIDE ANENXURE-B, D, F RESPECTIVELY ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner/party-in-person submits that he would confine the writ petition only insofar as Annexure-F, i.e., the Order dated 17.11.2015 made in File No.CIC/RM/A/2014/001528/BS/9017 passed by the Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, Club Building, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi. The said submission is placed on record.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed an application on 13.01.2014 under the Right to Information Act to the CPIO/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (HQ), calling for information relating to expenditure on parties, bouquets and memenots etc. The CPIO/DCIT, by the Order dated 10.02.2014, did not provide the information and passed an irrelevant, illegal and evasive order as per Annexure-B. Against the said Order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 18.02.2014 before the Appellate Authority i.e., the Prl. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru. The appellate authority, by the Order dated 11.03.2014, upheld the Order passed by the DCIT and rejected the appeal. Against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed Second Appeal on 15.04.2014 under the Right to Information Act before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. The Central Information Commission, by the impugned Order dated 17.11.2015, has not passed any orders on the Second Appeal with regard to the information sought by the petitioner in File No.001528. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
3. The respondents have not filed objections.
4. I have heard Sri T.C.Gupta, petitioner/party-in- person, and the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
5. Sri T.C.Gupta, petitioner/party-in-person, contended that the Second Appellate Authority has not passed any Order on the Second Appeal filed by him. Absolutely no reasons are assigned by the Second Appellate Authority as to whether any decision is taken in the appeal filed by him in respect of File No.001528. He would further contend that the appellate authority also upheld the order of the DCIT which rejected the RTI application against the express provisions of the RTI Act and passed illegal Order. He further contended that the Second Appellate Authority ought to have considered the appeal and ought to have passed independent Orders and same has not been done. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Second Appellate Authority dated 17.11.2015 only insofar as File No.001528 is concerned.
6. Per contra, Sri Pramod, learned Central Government Counsel, though sought to justify the impugned Order, he is unable to point out from the impugned Order that the Second Appellate Authority has passed an independent Order on the appeal filed by the petitioner in File No.001528.
7. Having heard the petitioner/party-in-person and the learned Central Government Counsel, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act calling for information from the CPIO/DCIT on 13.01.2014 relating to expenditure on parties, bouquets and mementos etc. The application came to be rejected by the original authority on 10.02.2014. It was confirmed by the appellate authority on 11.03.2014. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission in File No.001528 and other appeals. In the present writ petition, the petitioner confined his prayer only in respect of file No. 001528 on the information sought by him.
8. A careful perusal of the impugned Order clearly depicts that the Second Appellate Authority has recorded that, as stated by the CPIO, the petitioner should supply the relevant file notings recorded by the competent authority regarding the notices served on the petitioner and those relating to his transfer. However, while supplying the information, notings relating to other officers, if any, may be redacted. But, there is no decision by the Second Appellate Authority on the information sought by the petitioner and whether appeal is considered on merits or not is also not forthcoming. Absolutely, no reasons are assigned in Annexure-A either accepting or rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner in File No.001528. In view of the above, impugned Order cannot be sustained.
9. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Second Appellate Authority dated 17.11.2015 only insofar as File No.CIC/RM/A/2014/001528/BS/9017 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Second Appellate Authority for reconsideration of File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/001528/BS/9017 and pass reasoned Order as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner/party-in-person is directed to appear before the Second Appellate Authority on 05.08.2019.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm