O R D E R

1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi seeking information regarding the income tax details including 80G exemption nos. given to Ratnagiri Temple till date towards various Ratnagiri Temple/Any Specific Thirupanni/ Mahakumbabhizegam/ Balamuruganadimai-Theppakulam Thiruppani / Balamuruganadimai Pooja /

Ratnagiri Rural Hospital Trust / Ratnagiri Educational Trust etc.

2. The CPIO responded on 23-08-2019. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.

Hearing:

3. The complainant, Mr. Vetrivel S attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. R Mathangi, ACIT participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The complainant insisted on supplying the information by contending that the CPIO has wrongly claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

5. The respondent contended that the appellant is seeking third party information about the ‘income tax details including 80G exemption nos. given to Ratnagiri Temple till date towards various Ratnagiri Temple/Any Specific Thirupanni/ Mahakumbabhizegam/ Balamuruganadimai-Theppakulam Thiruppani /Balamuruganadimai Pooja / Ratnagiri Rural Hospital Trust / Ratnagiri Educational Trust etc.’ therefore, they have claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Decision:

6. This Commission further observes that while examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. Therefore, this Commission is not adjudicating on furnishing information to the complainant. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-

“30. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20.

However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.

31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.”

7. Further, it is observed that the CPIO has taken a considered view as per the RTI Act, 2005 and hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

8. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of. 9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta ( )

नीरज कुमार गु

Information Commissioner ( )

सचू ना आय Authenticated true copy ( )

अिभ S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682)

Addresses of the parties:

1. CPIO O/o. the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (HQ) (Exemption) AC Aaykar Bhawan Annexe 3^rd Floor, No. 121, MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034

2. CPIO O/o. the Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward No. 1. Aayakar Bhawan, No. 121, MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034

3. Mr. Vetrivel S.