Central Information Commission
Stephen Dmello vs Tata Memorial Centre on 31 March, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.
CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/624068 CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/625031
CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626298 CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/625024
CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626274 CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/623837
CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626079 CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/624252
CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626065 CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/624111
CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626325 CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/624106
CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626320 CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/623792
CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626316 CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/623756
Mr. Stephen Vincent D'mello ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Tata Memorial Centre ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri Umesh Kumar Mote - CPIO and
Shri VinayIndap- JR. Administrative Officer
Date of Hearing : 29.03.2023
Date of Decision : 31.03.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO 2nd Appeal
on appeal received
on/dated
624068 20.01.2022 16.02.2022 12.03.2022 10.04.2022 27.04.2022
626298 09.03.2022 30.03.2022 30.03.2022 18.04.2022 10.05.2022
626274 28.02.2022 25.03.2022 26.03.2022 18.04.2022 10.05.2022
626079 22.02.2022 22.03.2022 08.04.2022 26.04.2022 09.05.2022
626065 21.02.2022 21.03.2022 08.04.2022 26.04.2022 09.05.2022
626325 08.03.2022 29.03.2022 13.04.2022 29.04.2022 10.05.2022
626320 24.02.2022 24.03.2022 13.04.2022 29.04.2022 10.05.2022
Page 1 of 59
626316 23.02.2022 22.03.2022 13.04.2022 29.04.2022 10.05.2022
625031 18.02.2022 17.03.2022 08.04.2022 26.04.2022 02.05.2022
625024 17.02.2022 15.03.2022 21.03.2022 04.04.2022 02.05.2022
623837 19.01.2022 15.02.2022 11.03.2022 01.04.2022 26.04.2022
624252 16.02.2022 15.03.2022 21.03.2022 04.04.2022 28.04.2022
624111 15.02.2022 15.03.2022 19.03.2022 04.04.2022 27.04.2022
624106 24.01.2022 18.02.2022 12.03.2022 01.04.2022 27.04.2022
623792 18.01.2022 24.02.2022 14.03.2022 04.04.2022 26.04.2022
623756 18.01.2022 14.02.2022 11.03.2022 01.04.2022 26.04.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/624068 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.01.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 16.02.2022 as under:-Page 2 of 59 Page 3 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.03.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 01.04.2022 held as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 4 of 59
(2) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626298 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.03.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 30.03.2022 as under:-Page 5 of 59 Page 6 of 59 Page 7 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.03.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 18.04.2022 stated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(3) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626274 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.02.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 25.03.2022 as under:-Page 8 of 59 Page 9 of 59 Page 10 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.03.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 18.04.2022 stated as under:-Page 11 of 59
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(4) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626079 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 22.03.2022 as under:-Page 12 of 59 Page 13 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.04.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 26.04.2022 stated as under:-Page 14 of 59
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(5) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626065 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.02.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 21.03.2022 as under:-Page 15 of 59 Page 16 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.04.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 26.04.2022 held as under:-Page 17 of 59
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(6) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626325 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.03.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 29.03.2022 as under:-Page 18 of 59 Page 19 of 59 Page 20 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.04.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 29.04.2022 held as under:-Page 21 of 59
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(7) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626320 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.02.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 24.03.2022 as under:-Page 22 of 59 Page 23 of 59 Page 24 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.04.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 29.04.2022 stated as under:-Page 25 of 59
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(8) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/626316 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.02.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 22.03.2022 as under:-Page 26 of 59 Page 27 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.04.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 29.04.2022 stated as under:-Page 28 of 59
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(9) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/625031 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.02.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 17.03.2022 as under:-Page 29 of 59 Page 30 of 59 Page 31 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.04.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 26.04.2022 stated as under:-Page 32 of 59
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(10) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/625024 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.02.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 15.03.2022 as under:-Page 33 of 59 Page 34 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.03.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 04.04.2022 stated as under:-Page 35 of 59
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(11) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/623837 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 15.02.2022 is as under:-Page 36 of 59 Page 37 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 01.04.2022 held as under:-Page 38 of 59
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(12) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/624252 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.02.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 15.03.2022 is as under:-Page 39 of 59 Page 40 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.03.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 04.04.2022 stated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 41 of 59
(13) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/624111 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.02.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 15.03.2022 is as under:-Page 42 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.03.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 04.04.2022 stated as under:-Page 43 of 59
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(14) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/624106 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.01.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 18.02.2022 as under:-Page 44 of 59 Page 45 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.03.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 01.04.2022 held as under:-Page 46 of 59
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(15) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/623792 The he Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 24.02.2022 is as under:-Page 47 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.03.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 04.04.2022 stated as under:
under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(16) CIC/TMCTR/A/2022/623756 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated dated18.01.2022 18.01.2022 which was responded to by the CPIO/Sr. /Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 14.02.2022 is as under:-Page 48 of 59 Page 49 of 59
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2022. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 01.04.2022 held d as under:
under:-Page 50 of 59
Aggrieved and dissatisfied dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Respondent has sent a detailed written submission dated 23.03.2023, dealing with all the 16 appeals appeals. A background provided is as under:Page 51 of 59
The Respondent has addressed the 16 appeals stating as under::Page 52 of 59 Page 53 of 59
The Appellant also sent a written submission dated 29.03.2023 on the morning of the hearing, stating his contentions as under:Page 54 of 59
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present for hearing held through video conference and reiterated their respective contentions as already stated in the appeals and the written submissions mentioned hereinabove. It is noted that this Commission has heard three more appeal appeals viz. CIC/TMCTR/A/2021/645139, CIC/TMCTR/A/2021/642847 & CIC/TMCTR/A/2021/642844 filed by the same Appellant against the same Respondent and passed an order dated 21.10.2022.
21.10.2022 Decision:
1. The aforementioned appeals deal with similar subject matter and hence they are decided by a common order. Perusal of records of the aforementioned second appeals and the written submission filed by the Appellant reveals that he claims that he sought information ation in larger public interest related to Audit conducted by CAG of the Respondent-Tata Respondent Memorial Centre, hereinafter referred to as TMC TMC. The nature and pattern of the large number of queries on the other hand indicate that he is trying to carry out a public ic audit of the operation of the public authority authorit in question.
The subject matter as also the contentions of the Appellant are repetitive in the aforementioned appeals and the number of queries and RTI applications suggest an underlying objective of overwhelming the Public Authority.
Authority
2. Even if the Appellant's contention about serving larger public interest was to be accepted,, the means adopted by him is clearly not in consonance with the purpose and objective of the RTI Act as it stifles and defeats the very purpose of the Act. In other words, however noble the purpose of this vigorous attempt to bring about probity in the functioning of the Respondent public authority viz. TMC wo would have been, the fact remains that the modus operandi adopted by the Appellant by inundating the Respondent with myriad queries unfortunately is counter productive to the very purpose he claims to achieve. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected ted of the RTI Applicant Applicant/s shall not undermine the spirit of the RTI Act by clogging the system with such a barrage of RTI applications pplications, merely claiming that these are aimed at combating corruption.
Page 55 of 593. This aspect has been discussed by an earlier Bench of this Commission in its decision no. CIC/YA/A/2014/001071, 001123,001210 dated 30.06.2015 while disposing of a batch of fifteen matters filed by an Appellant named Shri M. Danasegar, wherein it was held as follows:
"......The Commission finds this case to be a classic instance of blatant misuse of RTI Act by the appellant, who is a disgruntled employee of the same organisation, through relentlessly filing of a series of RTI applications to harass officials of a public authority. The information sought in most of his RTI applications has no public interest at all and veers around the disciplinaryproceedings initiated against him. In the process of seeking the same, the appellant has resorted to reckless data mining on a humongous scale. Still, information has been provided by the respondent authorities as per record on some points and the rest denied for the reason that it is either voluminous or not available or relates to clarification/interpretation. The appellant, motivated by personal interest, has clearly sought such information with the vengeful motive to harass the officers through a flurry of RTI applications. The RTI Act 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. ..."
Emphasis supplied
4. The Commission in its aforesaid decision placed reliance on the following Apex Court decision regarding vexatious and frivolous petitions. The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries(AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ...."
5. Similar observations are noted in the Apex Court in great detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our Page 56 of 59 opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied
6. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi[WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"...The action of the .. respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....."
Emphasis supplied
7. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar &Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] while dismissing a writ petition had observed that:
"........Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied Page 57 of 59
8. In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West-
B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its order dated 08.10.2015 had held that:
"8. .....Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto..."
The aforesaid dictum clearly establishes that the misuse of RTI Act is a problem which are the Courts are mindful of and discourage the same. In a catena of similar decisions citizens such as the Appellant have been reminded that their right to information is not absolute.
9. Even the Apex Court in its decision (The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336) has categorically cautioned thus:
"...The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use..").
Emphasis supplied
10. In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held 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 Page 58 of 59 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 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties..."
Emphasis supplied
11. In view of the settled position of law and the facts of these appeals at hand, it is noted that though the queries raised by the Appellant are claimed to be in larger public interest, it cannot be denied that the modus operandi of filing such large number of RTI applications can not be entertained under the RTI Act.
12. The appeals filed by the Appellant, indicate that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act i.e. the information held by the public authority and which is not expressly barred under provisions of the RTI Act, has been duly provided by the Respondent. The allegations by the Appellant regarding irregularities in the functioning of the Respondent, as per certain audit reports, have to be addressed by the relevant competent authority. Adjudication of such issues do not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act, hence the Appellant is at liberty to seek appropriate legal remedy.
Considering the fact that information held by the public authority stands duly disseminated to the Appellant, no cause of action subsists under the RTI Act for further adjudication in the appeals.
The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 59 of 59