Wp/46486/2016 Of T.c. Gupta v. Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hq)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THR 15 DAY OF JULY, 2019) BEFORE, THR HON' BLE MR. JUSTICEK B. VEBRAPPA 'WRIT PETITION No.46486/2016(GMRES) BBRITIWE T.C. GUPTA, »/O SHRI GYAN CHAND,AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,R/O E-43, GOLDEN ENCLAVE,OLD AIRPORT ROAD,BANGALORE - 560 O1 7. . PRHTITIONBR (BY SRI T. C. GUPTA (PARTY-IN-PERSON)) AND: Ll.DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HQ)O/O THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, ©KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE - 560 OO1.|O/O THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, ©KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE - 560 OO1.| oOJOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HQ)O/O THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX,KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE - 560 OO1.|O/O THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX,KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE - 560 OO1.| ... RESPONDENTS| (BY SRI B. PRAMOD, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226& 227 OF THERE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE ORDERS DATED 10.2.2014 OF THE DCIT,|ORDER DATED 11.3.2014 OF THER AA AND ORDER DATED17.11.2015 OF THE CIC VIDE ANENXURE-B, D, F|RESPECTIVELY BIC. © THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HBARINGTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner/party-in-person submits that hewould confine the writ petition only insofar asAnnexure-F, i.e., the Order dated 17.11.2015 made in.File No.CIC/RM/A/2014/001528/BS/9017 passed bythe Information Commissioner, Central InformationCommission, Club Building, Old JNU Campus, NewDelhi. The said submission is placed on record. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that he filed an.applicationOT]13.01.2014|undertheRight.TO Information Act to the CPIO/Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax (HQ), calling for information relating toexpenditure 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, illegaland evasive order as per Annexure-B. Against the saidOrder, the petitioner filed an appeal on 18.02.2014.before the Appellate Authority i1.e., the Prl. ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru. The appellateauthority, by the Order dated 11.03.2014, upheld theOrder passed by the DCIT and rejected the appeal.Against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, thepetitioner filed Second Appeal on 15.04.2014 under theRight to Information Act before the Central InformationCommission, New Delhi. The Central Information|Commission, by the impugned Order dated 17.11.2015,has not passed any orders on the Second Appeal withregard to the information sought by the petitioner in FileNo.001528. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court forthe relief sought for. 3.The respondents have not filed objections. 4I have heard Sri T.C.Gupta, petitioner/party-in-person, and the learned Central Government Counselfor the respondents. 5.SrT.C.Gupta,petitioner/ party-in-person,contended that the Second Appellate Authority has notpassed any Order on the Second Appeal filed by him. —Absolutely no reasons are assigned by the SecondAppellate Authority as to whether any decision is takenin the appeal filed by him in respect of File No.001528. ©He would further contend that the appellate authorityalso upheld the order of the DCIT which rejected the RTIapplication against the express provisions of the RTI Act.and passed illegal Order. He further contended that thesecond Appellate Authority ought to have consideredthe appeal and ought to have passed independentOrders 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 dated17.11.2015 only insofar as File No.001528 is concerned. 6.Percontra,Sr1Pramod,learnedCentral Government Counsel, though sought to justify theimpugned Order, he is unable to point out from theimpugned Order that the Second Appellate Authorityhas passed an independent Order on the appeal filed bythe petitioner in File No.OO1928. order passed by the Second Appellate Authority dated17.11.2015 only insofar as File No.001528 is concerned. 6.Percontra,Sr1Pramod,learnedCentral Government Counsel, though sought to justify theimpugned Order, he is unable to point out from theimpugned Order that the Second Appellate Authorityhas passed an independent Order on the appeal filed bythe petitioner in File No.OO1928. T Having heard the petitioner/party-in-person andthelearnedCentralGovernmentCounsel, it.1S|undisputed fact that the petitioner filed an applicationundertheRightTO Information Actcallingfor.information from the CPIO/DCIT on 13.01.2014 relatingto expenditure on parties, bouquets and mementos etc. —The application came to be rejected by the originalauthority on 10.02.2014. It was confirmed by theappellate authority on 11.03.2014. It is also not indispute that the petitioner filed Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission in File No.OO1528|and other appeals. In the present writ petition, thepetitioner confined his prayer only in respect of file No.001528 on the information sought by him. 8.A careful perusal of the impugned Order clearlydepicts that the Second Appellate Authority hasrecorded that, as stated by the CPIO, the petitionershould supply the relevant file notings recorded by thecompetent authority regarding the notices served on thepetitioner and those relating to his transfer. However,while supplying the information, notings relating toother officers, if any, may be redacted. But, there is nodecision by the Second Appellate Authority on theinformation sought by the petitioner and whetherappeal is considered on merits or not is also notforthcoming. Absolutely, no reasons are assigned inAnnexure-A either accepting or rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner in File No.OO19528. In view of theabove, impugned Order cannot be sustained. 9.For the reasons stated above, writ petition isallowed. The impugned order passed by the Second|Appellate Authority dated 17.11.2015 only insofar asFile No.CIC/RM/A/2014/001528/BS/9017is herebyquashed. The matter is remanded to the SecondAppellate Authority for reconsideration of File No.CIC/RM/A/2014/001528/BS/9017 and pass reasonedOrderaS|expeditiouslyas|possible,|strictlyinaccordance with law. The petitioner/party-in-person isdirected to appear before the Second Appellate Authorityon 05.08.2019. Ordered accordingly. kem Sd/-JUDGE