Central Information Commission
Vijay Dhaker vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 6 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NPCOI/A/2024/619692
Shri Vijay Dhaker ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Nuclear Power Corporation of India, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Rawatbhata Site
Date of Hearing : 03.02.2025
Date of Decision : 03.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.01.2024
PIO replied on : 11.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 12.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : 08.05.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 10.05.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.03.2024 seeking information on the following points about members of 3 Internal Complaints Committee of NPCL, RR Site:-
"1) Qualification and past working experience details (handling of sexual harassment cases, social work, legal work, work done for cause of women etc.) of all members.
2) Experience details of all members in the field of social work which leads to creation of societal conditions favourable towards empowerment of women and in particular in addressing workplace sexual harassment.
3) Complete details about familiarity of all members of ICC, RR Site with labour, service, civil or criminal laws.
4) All details about familiarity of all members of ICC, RR Site with the issues relating to sexual harassment.
5) Provide details whether an inquiry into an offence under any law for the time being in force is pending against any member of ICC or any of them has been convicted for an offence anytime.
6) Provide details about any inquiry or disciplinary proceeding held or pending against any member of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), RR Site. If any inquiry/disciplinary proceeding was held at any time against any member then what was the outcome of that inquiry i.e. whether the member was found guilty or exonerated."Page 1 of 4
The CPIO, NPCIL, Rawatbhata vide letter dated 29.04.2024 replied as under:-
"Information sought is not available"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.05.2024. The FAA, ED (CP&CC), NPCIL, Mumbai vide order dated 08.05.2024 stated as under:-
"The information sought by you is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 30.01.2025 has been received from the CPIO & Sr. Manager, Legal stating as under:
A. It is to submit that appellant in his RTI sought information about all the members of Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) constituted as per provisions of POSH Act. Which was replied as not available by the then CPIO. Appellate Authority after review held that information was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Appellant asking personal information and also wants to create the information by taking shelter of Section-4 of POSH Act. Section-4 of POSH Act prescribed the constitution of ICC. Declaring ICC shall be statutory obligations on the public authority. Which can not be challenged under the provision of RTI Act. Appellant wants to get redressal of his grievance through RTI, therefore the response given is valid.
B. It is to submit that a disciplinary inquiry against present appellant based on a complaint filed by victim under POSH Act is pending and also a litigation filed by present appellant related to said complaint is sub-judice before Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur vide SBCWP No. 16594/2023 and appellant to redress his grievance against the pending disciplinary inquiry continuously filling several RTI applications before the Authority i.e. NPCIL. NPCIL provided reply to all the applications within the purview of the RTI Act.
.....
In our case appellant from 2020 to 2024 had filed total 322 RTI applications and appeals seeking multiple information and, on several occasions, similar and same information based on the pending disciplinary inquiry against him. In past also Hon'ble Commission disposed off a bunch of RTI appeals filed by appellant. A copy of the written submission has been duly sent to the Appellant. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Sanmati S Mudholkar - Sr. Manager(Legal)/CPIO and Shri Debashish Giri - Sr. Manager(HR) were present from NPCIL, Rawatbhata Rajasthan through video conference during hearing.
Both parties reiterated their respective contentions with the Respondent stating that response in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act had been duly sent to the Page 2 of 4 Appellant. The Respondent pointed out that the Appellant had filed huge number of repeated RTI applications on the same subject matter burdening and harassing the public officials by hindering their daily duties and efficient operation due to diversion of public resources in answering frivolous and vexatious RTI queries.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished appropriate response in consonance with terms of the provisions of the Act. The PIO's reply has in fact been corrected by the FAA denying disclosure of information using the correct provision of law.
It is noteworthy from the records of the case that the information sought by the Appellant serves no larger public interest but is an outcome of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The huge number of RTI applications are definitely motivated by personal interest and is an act supported by vengeful motive to harass the officers a deluge of RTI applications. This Commission as well as the various Courts of law have repeatedly held that the RTI Act, meant to create transparency in governance, cannot be allowed to be misused or abused and to become a tool of oppression or for intimidation of officials striving to do their duty. The information seeker cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately, with the ma intent of harassing the authority and making response to frivolous RTI queries occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest.
The Apex Court in the landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., has observed as follows:
"...The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interest. ...................................
37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability.............................
Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends Page 3 of 4 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties..."
Emphasis supplied Applying the ratio of the aforementioned legal precedent, to the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that filing such large number of irrelevant RTI applications is neither proper nor acceptable and is totally against the spirit of the Act. Hence, the Appellant is strongly advised to refrain from misusing the RTI Act in this manner to resolve his personal grudges.
Considering the fact that the response sent by the Respondent is legally appropriate, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)