A division bench of the Commission noted the appellant Rakesh Gupta is an "informer" which means he earns money at the rate of 10 per cent of the tax amount recovered from the tax payers because of the information given.
The Bench comprising Information Commissioners--Basant Seth and Sridhar Acharyulu--observed that the question to be considered is that he was using RTI route to collect information, verify whether assessee has suppressed income and provide that information to the Income Tax office.
Gupta contended that since incentive to reveal such income related information helps the state to enhance income, it is in public interest and thus he can also seek the same, the order of the Bench noted.
Rejecting the demand for "very high volume" of
Also Read
information related to a hospital group perhaps constituting 50 per cent of the IT office, the Bench said multiple applications regarding Escorts and top executives concerned give an impression that for some reason, the appellant was "targeting" the Escorts.
"The appellant failed to establish public interest while the Public Authority successfully shows that there was no public interest," the order said.
It said, "The Commission concludes that Rakesh Kumar Gupta could not show any public interest and being a professional 'informer', he might have been interested in increasing his income by means of securing 'incentive' by giving Tax Evasion information. Rakesh Kumar Gupta was not just exercising his right to information."
"The whole office has to work for longer times to furnish information sought. Rakesh Kumar Gupta cannot be encouraged to misuse RTI. Indiscriminate demand of voluminous information is not only abuse of right by the petitioner but also threatened the core function of the public authority," it said.