Central Information Commission
Sudha vs Archaeological Survey Of India on 11 March, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ALSOI/A/2023/669948
Ms. Sudha ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Vigilance Section, Archaeological Survey of ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
India, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 11.03.2024
Date of Decision : 11.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.09.2022
PIO replied on : 04.10.2022
First Appeal filed on : 05.10.2022
First Appellate Order on : NA
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 02.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.09.2022 seeking information on following 12 points:-
(1) (a) Provide copies of all the letters/representations received by 0/o Regional Director (North), ASI from offices/schools of Education Department, GNCTD in r/o Kotla Firozshah G (Co-ed) Middle School, Delhi. The information is desired for the period wef 1-1-2022 to till date. (1) (b) Provide diary number with date of all the above mentioned letters received by 0/o Regional Director (North), ASI.
(2) (a) Copies of the replies by 0/o Regional Director (North), ASI on all the above mentioned letters. (2) (b) Information regarding action taken (other than sending reply) on all the above mentioned letters.
(3) (a) Diary number of letter F.No.16-22/NMA-2021/PG dt. 22-9-22 forwarded by NMA to 0/o Regional Director (North), ASI. (3) (b) Copy of the response with annexures on the above mentioned letter.
(4) (a) Names of the officials with tenure who served as Regional Director (North), ASI from 1-1-2020 to 31-3-2021.
(4) (b) Information regarding dates of visit by Sh. N.K. Pathak, former Regional Director (North), ASI to Kotla Firozshah G (Co-ed) Middle School, Delhi between 15-3-20 to 28-2-21.Page 1 of 5
(4) (c) Diary number with date of receipt of letter F.No. DMC/08/2019-RTI-U/C-2910 dt.
19-3-20 of Asstt. Superintending Archaeologist, ASI, Delhi Mini Circle.
(4) (d) Copy of the comments made by Sh. N.K. Pathak (former Regional Director, North) on the inspection report of Amit (Jr. CA) annexed with the above mentioned letter of Asstt. Superintending Archaeologist, ASI, Delhi Mini Circle.
(5) (a) Number of complaints received by 0/o Regional Director (North), ASI regarding illegal construction at Kotla Firozshah G (Co-ed) Middle School, Delhi between 15-3-20 to 28-2-21.
(5) (b) Information regarding action taken by Sh. N.K. Pathak former Regional Director (North), ASI against Amit (Jr. CA) who submitted false inspection report in r/o illegal construction at Kotla Firozshah G (Co-ed) Middle School, Delhi.
(5) (c) Information regarding action taken by Dr. Arvin Manjul, Regional Director (North), ASI against Amit (Jr. CA) who submitted false inspection report in r/o illegal construction at Kotla Firozshah G (Co-ed) Middle School, Delhi.
DESIRED INFORMATION FROM THE CONCERNED CPIOs OF ASI HQ :
(6) (a) Provide copies of all the letters/representations received by Monuments Section of ASI HQ from offices/schools of Education Department, GNCTD regarding demolition order issued in r/o Kotla Firozshah G (Co-ed) Middle School, Delhi. The information is desired for the period wef 1-6-2022 to till date. (6) (b) Provide diary number with date of all the above mentioned letters received by Monuments Section of ASI HQ.
(6) (c) Copies of the replies by Monuments Section of ASI HQ on all the above mentioned letters. (6) (d) Diary number with date of email dt. 24-9-22 of Ullas Jain which was addressed to Director (Monuments) and pertaining to the subject 'Regarding failure of ASI officials & unsubstantiated allegations made by Director (Monuments)' as per Monuments Section of ASI.
(7) (a) Provide copies of all the letters/representations received by Jt. Director General of ASI from offices/schools of Education Department, GNCTD regarding demolition order issued in r/o Kotla Firozshah G (Co-ed) Middle School, Delhi. The information is desired for the period wef 1-6-2022 to till date.
(7) (b) Provide diary number with date of all the above mentioned letters received by Jt.
Director General of ASI.
(7) (c) Copies of the replies by Jt. Director General of ASI on all the above mentioned letters.
(8) (a) Information regarding total number of pages including annexed pdf file of email complaint dt. 26-9-22 sent to Vigilance Section, ASI HQ by Ullas Jain.
(8) (b) Diary number with date o above mentioned email complaint of Ullas Jain.
(8) (c) Name & designation of the official to whom the preliminary enquiry against the charged official mentioned in the complaint has been assigned.
Page 2 of 5"(9) Information regarding non-applicability of legal principle 'ignorance of law is not an excuse' on officials of ASI, Delhi Circle.
(10) (a) Provide copies of all the letters/representations received by Delhi Circle of ASI from offices/schools of Education Department, GNCTD regarding demolition order issued in r/o Kotla Firozshah G (Co-ed) Middle School, Delhi. The information is desired for the period wef 1-6-2022 to till date.
(10) (b) Provide diary number with date of all the above mentioned letters received by Delhi Circle of ASI.
(10) (c) Copies of the replies by Delhi Circle of ASI on all the above mentioned letters.
(10) (d) Information regarding any other action apart from replues taken on the above mentioned letters.
(11) (a) Name of the deponent of fresh affidavit submitted to CIC after the receipt of CPGRAM numbered DCLTR/E/2022/00177.
(11) (b) Date of sworning & signing the above mentioned affidavit by the deponent.
(12) Copy of the letter written to higher officials of Delhi Police after SHO, IP Estate refused to register FIR on complaint numbered 255 dt. 8-2-22 of Amit (Jr. CA, Firozshah Kotla Sub- Circle)."
The CPIO, Vigilance Section, ASI, New Delhi vide letter dated 04.10.2022 replied as under:-
"Not pertains to CPIO Vigilance."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.10.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Animesh Dev Rai, SO (Vig) The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.
Shri Animesh Dev Rai reiterated the written submission of the FAA and Dy Secretary, ASI vide letter dated 08.03.2024 the relevant extracts of which are as under:
The applicant Smt. Sudha vide her RTI application registration No' ALSOltNEl22lO0565/2 dated. 26.09.2022 (copy enclosed) raised a series of 3l queries srouoed in 12 points. in the form of question paper, out of which Page 3 of 5 point No.8 (with parts a to c) pertaining to the Vigilance Section of ASI, HQ are as under: - '
a) Information regarding total number of pages including annexed pdf file of email complaint dated. 26.09.2022 sent to Vigilance Section, ASI, HQ by Sh' Ullas Jain
b) Diary number with date of abovementioned email complaint of Sh.UllasJain.
c) Name & designation of the official to whom the preliminary enquiry against the charged official mentioned in the complaint has been assigned
2. Therefore, from the RTI of the applicant itself it can be seen that sharing information of such a magnitude causes disproportionate diversion of Government resources and overloading the existing workforce brings much hardship to the public authorities.
Still sincere efforts were made by the CPIO, and vide Letter No. 7-03/2022- Vig. dated 12.10.2022 (copy enclosed), furnished the following replies against the above mentioned queries: -
a) Information regarding complaint of third person i.e., Sh. Ullas Jain cannot be provided as per Section 8(l) (g) of the RTI Act 2005.
b) Diary No. 149 dated. 30.09.2022.
c) Name & Designation ofthe officer whom inquiry has been assigned cannot be disclosed as per Section 8 ( I )(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Thus Vigilance Section (ASI HQ) provided maximum possible relevant information as per rules as mandated under the RTI Act
4. It is informed that rest of the information sought vide the aforementioned RTI application pertained to other divisions of the ASI and the same was forwarded to them for its onward reply to the applicant.
5. Besides that Smt. Sudha and other complaints have raised around 20 analogous RTI applications so far and maximum possible information in this regard has been shared with them. Still the same applicants time and again seek identical information in one form or the other.
6. Attention of the Hon'ble Commission is also invited to the attached order No: CIC/ALSOI/A120221664888-UM dated. 12.07.2023(copy enclosed) wherein the Commission was compelled to pass strictures against unfounded complaints of Smt. Sudha as under:
Page 4 of 5"Furthermore the Commission observes that the appellant has exhibited a pattern of repeatedly filing unfounded complaints against public authorities, and has repeatedly approached the Central Information Commission with similar grievance, resulting in a gross waste of public resources and time. Despite the angularities in the appellant's second appeals the commission tried its best to give justice to the Appellant in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Law. There were over half dozen personnel from the respondent authority who had come with dozens of files before the Commission for hearing. The Commission cannot put up with such irresponsible behaviour of the appellant, not the least after having heard repeated second appeals of the appellant with the same pleas in the spirit of the RTI Law despite the fact some of her pleas were quite frivolous.
Accordingly, Commission advises the appellant not to waste further time of the Commission as well as the respondent authority. Accordingly, the Commission hereby directs the registry of this bench to refrain from scheduling any further hearing for the Appellant in this bench. She is free to approach higher courts in the matter in case she feels she is not getting justice. "
7. In view of the above Hon'ble Commission is requested to consider the above facts for issuing a final order in the case."
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands 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 5 of 5