ASHOK KUMAR GOEL vs. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER VAT WARD NO 64 & ANR

The appellant herein appears to be a stubborn litigant who is bent upon harassing respondent No.2, who happens to be none other than the brother of the appellant. The respondent No.2’s firm is registered under the Value Added Tax and is filing returns of its sales etc. with the Sales Tax Commissioner, New Delhi. The appellant wanted certain information from the Sales Tax Commissioner in relation to respondent No.2 firm and therefore he moved application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 asking for the following information:

The CPIO refused to divulge the aforesaid information invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The appellant approached the Appellate Authority which also rejected the application. Undeterred, the appellant approached the next authority viz. Central Information Commission (CIC) challenging the orders of CPIO and Appellate Authority. To the dismay of the appellant, it met the same fate as the CIC also was of the opinion that the information could not have been divulged to the appellant inasmuch as no public interest was involved or could be shown / established by the appellant. The CIC, in the process, made scathing observations stating that this case depicts how a weapon designed to ease problems of the citizen is at times being misused and totally abused in the hands of people like the appellant to settle personal scores. It was further observed that the public authority providing information to such warring siblings is also in its own way permeating creation of bad blood and recommended that way be found to resolve and avoid such revengeful and negative atmosphere and unhealthy competition.

Even these scathing observations of CIC did not deter the appellant to challenge the aforesaid order by preferring writ petition. In the writ petition, the learned Single Judge took the same view and dismissed the said writ petition vide impugned order dated 25.01.2012 by imposing cost of `25,000/-.

It appears that the appellant by his conduct is proving that the observations made by the CIC and as noticed above are factually correct which is proved by the fact that even the order of the learned Single Judge and imposition of cost of `25,000/- has not diminished the revengeful attitude of the appellant who has chosen to file the present appeal challenging that order.

We have already reproduced the nature of information which the appellant seeks. It is essentially related to the returns filed by the respondent No.2’s firm with the Sales Tax Commissioner and on the basis of which the respondent No.2’s firm has been paying the VAT. Section 98 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 makes such returns confidential and specifically stipulates that all particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced in accordance with this Act, or in any record of evidence given in the course of any proceedings under this Act, other than proceedings before a criminal Court shall be treated as confidential and notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no court shall, save as aforesaid, be entitled to require any servant of the Government to produce before it any such statement, return, account, document or record or any part thereof, or to give evidence before it in respect thereof. Thus this provision protects and insulates the persons filing such returns and even the Court is not entitled to summon the records except when the proceedings are before a Criminal Court or what is saved under Sub-Section (3) of Section 98 of the Act. Not only this, Sub-Section (2) Section 98 of the Act provides for punishment with imprisonment upon the government servant who discloses such information.

Provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act are to be interpreted, in the present context, keeping in view the provisions of Section 98 of the Act. Provisions of Section 8(1)(d) reads as under:

It is not in dispute that the information in the form of returns filed by the respondent No.2’s firm is in the nature of commercial confidence competent authority is to do its exercise in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner. Such a procedure has to be transparent. This is also based on the principle that the public largesse are not to be distributed by the Government functionaries at their whims and fancies and all have equal right to be considered and all eligible persons have to be considered for award of public works. Thus the method of evaluation of tender has to be transparent. In a particular case, if it is found that the exercise done was not in accordance with the tender conditions or was arbitrary, the same can be set aside / quashed. It is in this light, that the right to know the basis of tender documents, the eligibility of a tenderer or the manner in which bid is decided comes within the domain of larger public interest. The judgment aforesaid therefore will have no application to the facts of the present case.

The learned counsel for the appellant then referred to the earlier orders passed by the CIC and on the basis of which it was argued that such information was supplied / ordered to be supplied by the CIC on earlier occasion. Most probably these orders pertain to tender documents or some other kind of information sought. Even if in some particular case information of this nature was directed to be given, a wrong order does not become a precedent or has to be followed. When we examine the present case on the threshold of the aforesaid provisions of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 as well as RTI Act, we are convinced that the information is duly protected under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and it was rightly not supplied by the CPIO to the appellant herein.

We therefore are of the opinion that the present appeal is nothing but misuse of the process of law and we dismiss the same with costs of `50,000/-. We authorize respondent No.1 to recover cost of `25,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge as well as the cost of `50,000/- imposed by us from the appellant.