TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting for the information except those that may be available with him and necessary for contacting him. This, in the submission of the learned counsel for the Applicant - Petitioner, gives a larger latitude and platform to the Applicant under the said Act. The procedure for disposal of such request and application provided in Section 7 of the RTI Act, while the other provisions of remedial nature for further appeal, etc. are contained in Chapter 5 containing Sections 18 to 20 of the RTI Act. The overriding factor which enables such information to be disclosed notwithstanding the exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act appears to be larger public interest in such disclosure of information. The tenor of the application filed by the Applicant shows it is in the nature of a complaint against the private Respondents to the Income Tax Department, rather than any bona fide public interest sought to be served by the disclosure of such information about the status of the private Respondents as agriculturists or not, whether their right to get such status by way of a Will executed by a Testator is sustainable in law or not, etc. Such personal or private information about the Assessees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SERVED BY DS(5) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO. 1,2,3 UNSERVED REFUSED (N)(10) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO. 7 JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI) 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 16.7.2015 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss Special Civil Application No.7187 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner - Appellant Mr. Vinubhai Haribhai Patel (Malavia), Surat against the concerned authorities of the Income Tax Department under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('the RTI Act' for short) and the private parties - Respondent Nos.4 to 8. 2. The learned Single Judge held that the Petitioner is not entitled to get the information in the form of his Income Tax Returns, Status of Agriculturists, disclosure as Business Income or not etc. and from the concerned Authorities of the Income Tax Department under provisions of the RTI Act with respect to private Respondent M/s. Tarunkumar Kantilal Raval and others with whom the present Petitioner has some litigation with regard to the land in question, which the Petitioner claims to have purchased and was again sold by the same Seller in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s disputed and the disputes of civil nature were being agitated before the forum concerned and the court. This information being personal in nature, could not be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner, rather they were clearly exempted information under Section 8(1)(j). The contention of larger public interest justifying the disclosure does not exist. In disclosing the said information asked for by the petitioner relating to the private parties, there was no element of public interest to be sub served. The information was personal information relating to third parties. The attendant facts and circumstances and the litigation between the petitioner and those parties, instead indicated that the information was personal information which was asked for by the petitioner for his own personal interest and private purpose. Respondent No.3 Central Information Commissioner was eminently justified in taking a view that there was no public interest present in the information claimed to be supplied, rightly denying the same by dismissing the appeal. 7. Lastly but importantly, dealing with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake recourse to the relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by applying before the competent authority and pursue his request for getting such information in accordance with law. 9. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. Accordingly this petition stands dismissed summarily. 5. None has appeared on behalf of the private Respondents despite service and though we had directed Mr. Manish M. Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department to put an appearance vide our order dated 6.1.2021, but none has appeared on behalf of the Income Tax Department also. Therefore, we have heard Mr. N.M. Kapadia, learned counsel for the Appellant - Petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant - Petitioner, we are satisfied that the order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference in the present intra Court appeal and the same being without merit deserves to be dismissed. The reasons are as follows. 7. The scheme of the RTI Act which was enacted for the avowed purpose to ensure greater and more effective transparency in public domain and to make Indian democracy m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmation available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (f) information received in confidence from foreign government; (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; (i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions under this Act], as may, in the opinion of the Board or other income tax authority, be necessary for the purpose of enabling the officer, authority or body to perform his or its functions under that law. (b) Where a person makes an application to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] in the prescribed form for any information relating to any assessee 3 received or obtained by any income tax authority in the performance of his functions under this Act], the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1) or any other law for the time being in force, the Central Government may, having regard to the practices and usages customary or any other relevant factors, by order notified in the Official Gazette, direct that no information or document shall be furnished or produced by a public servant in respect of such matters relating to such class of assessees or except to such authorities as may be spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red or contested by the Assessees concerned before the Income Tax Authorities and they are not the 'information' in public domain to be made available to any third party. 14. As we have said above only the larger public interest duly established with relevant material which can override this confidentiality of the information and documents available with the Income Tax Department, but we fail to see even an iota of the public interest in this case. The tall claims made in the application about the alleged effort of the private Respondents to evade income tax under the garb of the claim of a status of their being agriculturists, particularly by a person who is admittedly in litigation over the same land in question with these Respondents, which is said to have been sold by them to the Petitioner as well as private Respondents. Therefore, the only interest of the Petitioner who has been fighting against these private Respondents at all possible forums including the RTI Act and criminal complaints appears to be the only private interest and the name of a public interest is just a ruse or excuse given to the public authorities calling upon them to disclose such 'informat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, is the larger public interest in disclosure of such personal information too. We are not satisfied at all looking to the facts of the present case that any larger public interest can be sub served in the present case by disclosure of the 'information' in question to the Applicant - Petitioner which is more likely to be used by him in his own favour in the pending litigation with the private Respondents. The legal fight between the two in other foras have to be contested by them on the basis of their own material and evidence and not on the basis of information gathered through the process of RTI Act. 18. In order to check the abuse and misuse of the purpose and procedure enacted in the RTI Act, it is very essential to keep out the Applicants and persons who approach the Authorities concerned except for bona fide reasons. The existence of bona fide reasons is a question of fact, which has to be established by the Applicant with relevant material and not just empty and hollow words to be used. In the background of the case which we have in hand, we see only the private interest of the Applicant - petitioner and not even a semblance of public interest in the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
