The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) V. Central Information Commission

WP/18897/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Hyderabad, against an order issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had directed the Directorate to inform the second respondent, Noliv Vasishta Venkateswarlu, about the status and outcome of his RTI application concerning his complaint about benami transactions. The Directorate challenged this order, arguing that it was exempt from disclosing such information under Section 24 of the RTI Act, as it pertains to an organization listed in the Second Schedule of the Act. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the broader public interest, dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in public offices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 692690 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur, Girish Ranchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, Katapally Satyam Reddy v. ACIT, Kuppapally Satya Reddy's case, Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, Gulab Singh Rona v. Central Public Information Officer
• Laws Referred To: Right to Information Act, 2005
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR; NOOY VENKATESWARLU
• Assessee Lawyers: K CHOWDARY
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Interim order; Mandamus; Perverse; RTI; Stay of Operation; Ultra Vires; Unreasonable; Contrary to law
• Section: 24; 151; 19(1); 6(1); 8(1)(j)

Judgement Text

"[ 3300 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 18897 OF 2024 Between: AND 1 2 The Director General of lncome Tax ( lnvestigation), Aaykar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER Central lnformation Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Murnika, New Delhi - 1 10067 Noliv Vasishta Venkateswarlu, S/o. Nooty Ramamohan Rao, R/o. Plot No bA, Asf,wini Liyout, Road No. 70, Journalist Colony, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a mandamus declaring the order of the Respondent No. 1 as being arbitrary, unreasonable, perverse, ultra vires, and contrary to Section 24 read with schedule 2 of the Right to lnformation Act, 2005 and to consequently set aside the same lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased prays that pending disposal of the writ petition' it is prayed that this Hon,ble court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 04. 06. 2024 lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: Nooty Vas shta Venkateswarlu, S/o. Nooty Ramamohan Aged about 37 yegl.s Ba..9, R/o Plot No. 34, Ashwini Layout, Road No. 70, Journatist Colony, Jubliee Hil s, Hyderabad - 5001 10 ...PETITlONER/RESPONDENT No.2 AND 1. The Direclor General of lncome Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Tax ( lnvestigation), Aaykar Bhavan, ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Central lnformation Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Murnika, New Delhi - 1 10067 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT No.1 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave of this Hon'bie Court for conducting the above Wril petition as a Party-in-Person as lwas impleaded as 2nd respondent heretn lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ.umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted by this Hon'ble Court on 2310712024 in W.p.No. 18897 of 2024 as the balance of convenience lies in favour of this petitioner and against the respondent/writ petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. K. MAMATA CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDtA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. NOOW VASHIST VENKATESWARLU, PARTY-IN-PERSON The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPANA WRIT PETITION No. LAA97 OF 2024 ORDER: Petitioner - Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) questions the order dated 04.O6.2024, by whic!l,, the 1st respondent Central Information Commission, New Delhi directed to inlorm the 2I1(l responde nt the status of action taken on his complaint (as mcntioned in RTI Application) as on date of RTI Application and at prcsent; if thc saici Application has already been disposed oi, then the broad outcome should be provided to him .,vithin three u.eeks from the date of receipt of the said orcier. 2. While entertaining the Writ Petition, on 23.07.2024, this Court directed stay of the order impugned primo facie, on the ground that the said order was passed without considering the fact that the Appiication filed by the 2\"d respondent under Section 6(1) of the Rrght to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the Act') was disposcd of uide order dated 17.O2.2O22; Appeal was preferred under Section 19(1) and the same was also disposed of on 14.12.2022 by the appeliate authoriq'. 3. 'lhe brief facts reievant for deciding tire Writ l,etition are: the 2\"d respondent hled an Application uncler Section 6(1) of the Act on 03. 1 I .2022 seeking certain inforrrratiorr rcia Ling to the complairLt fi1ed by him with regard to binan-ri [ransactions carricd on 6f Sn MJ. Sharma witli PAN No. III{MPM 1756E aioni; u.ith Siri Cherukuri Sreedhar, MD & CD() ot- Tri, nstory Icliastructure Company, Jubilee Hi1ls, ljvdera i:ad. Ti.: e said Application was rejected uide reply dared 17.02.2i)21. reir rng on ,1rc iudgmer-.. t in Katapallg So:thgr: Reddg L. ACIT. (BpU), Hgd.era.bad dated 23.1O.2020, on the ground rl-rat Scctio.r 24{2) r,i the Act excmpts certain government organiserti.tt-t s ...,'hi,.i'r find :r.Ition in Schedule II. as nottiicC b1, thc Ceatr-.:i i,.)i't'i-irment i;r the Ofl-rcia1 Gazette. The Director (icnerai lri [lr:i:t-r.c TiL< (inr.cstigation) is included vide Ofhcial Gazettc dated 28.i1.].2O08 in the list of organisations u,hich are exempted ironi prr,r,iding irriormation as per Section 24. Tine Benami Tltrnsactions (Prohibition ) lJnit comes under con trol of the Direr:torate General of Income Tax (Investigation). Hence, this ofice is e xcmpted fro m providing such information. The rirst Aplellate Ar,tthoriQy dismissed the Appeal of the 2.,1 respcncent br.order dated 74.12.2022, opirling that appellant is inquisitive to know the details of investigation findings and the outcome of his TEp. However, it is noteworthy to affirm that the Office of the Director General of Income Tax (lnvestigation) has been excluded from the purview of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the 2\"d respondent frled the Second Appeal before the lsr respondent, q/ho passed the order impugned, as stated supra. 4. The 1sr respondent - Commission opined that the broad outcome of the action taken on the Application or status of the complaint / letter shoulcl have bcen inlormed to the 2\"d respondent under Lhe Act. The Commission re lied on the judgment in Kamal Bh