TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , within two weeks. - WP (C) No. 3114 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2007 - S. Ravindra Bhat, J. Shri Girija Varma, Advocate and Party-in-Person, for the Petitioner. Ms Sonia Mathur, Advocate, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The petitioner in the present writ proceeding approaches this Court seeking partial quashing of an order of the Central Information Commission and also for a direction from this Court that the information sought by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) should be supplied with immediate effect. 2. The facts relevant to decide the case are as follows. The petitioner was married in 2000 to Smt. Saroj Nirmal. In November, 2000 she filed a criminal complaint alleging that she had spent/paid as dowry an amount of Rs. Ten Lakhs. Alleging that these claims were false, the petitioner, with a view to defend the criminal prosecution launched against him, approached the Income Tax Department with a tax evasion petition (TEP) dated 24-9-2003. Thereafter, in 2004 the Income Tax Department summoned the petitioner s wife to present her case before them. Meanwhile, the petitioner made repeated requests to the Director o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 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 Sections 8(1)(j) did not justify withholding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 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] the Supreme Court remarked about this right in the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on; 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 judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
