9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st an order dated 3rd April 2008 passed by the Central Information Commission ('CIC') allowing the Respondent's appeal and directing the Petitioner to furnish to the Respondent relevant documents pertaining to the inclusion of his name in the "Agreed List" after due application of Section 10(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("RTI" Act). 2. Admittedly the Respondent was included in the "Agreed List" in the year 2004 and his name continued to be on the said list in 2005 and 2006. It is stated that he was subject to discreet inquiry/watch by the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI') as his name figured in the "Agreed List". The Petitioner referred to instruction No. 1881 dated 13th February 1991 of the Department of Revenue, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I Act. It was held that "the information by such superior authorities is given in confidence and is held in fiduciary capacity, the permission to inspect the file with regard to suggestions made for inclusion/deletion of names in the agreed list would be against the spirit of Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act." 6. Aggrieved by the above decision, the Respondent filed an appeal before the Chief Commissioner Income Tax ("CCIT"), which by its order dated 17th April 2007, had rejected the Respondent's appeal, inter alia, on the ground that 'the Agreed List is a matter of internal convenience and is not generally meant to be aired in public. For should such arising be done, an innocent order's name may well get tarnishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to furnish the relevant documents pertaining to the inclusion of the appellant's name in the Agreed List, after due application of Section 10(1) of the Act. The CPIO is free to withhold the name of officials, who may have provided critical inputs and recommended the inclusion of the appellant's name in the Agreed List. He may also withhold the name of the complainants, if any, in the matter, while the contents of such inputs should be disclosed to enable the alleged official to prove his innocence. The relevant information may thus be disclosed within 15 working days from the date of issue of this direction." 8. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Kannan Kapur, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e considered view of this court, the above submissions are misconceived. The Respondent is seeking information only about himself being included in the Agreed List. There is no question of the Department invoking the right to privacy of the Respondent to deny him information concerning him which is held by them. The apprehension that such information may tarnish the reputation of the Respondent is also misconceived. It is also the Respondent himself who is asking the information on the material on the basis of which his name was included in the "Agreed List". Moreover, the period during which the Respondent's name was included in the "Agreed List" has long come to an end. The period during which he was kept under surveillance is over. By di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
