Central Information Commission
Punit Sharma vs Ministry Of Defence on 16 February, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/DODEF/A/2022/119389 +
11 other (as per Annexure)
In the matter of
Puneet Sharma
...Appellant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer
Principal Directorate, Defence Estate
Central Command, 17, Cariappa Road,
Lucknow Cantt- 226 002
2. Central Public Information Officer
Headquaters, Central Command,
Pin - 900 450, C/o 56 APO
3. Central Public Information Officer
Ministry of Defence
Department of Defence, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 011
4. Central Public Information Officer
O/o Chief Executive Officer
Cantonment Board Meerut,
Meerut Cantt (U.P.) - 250 001
5. Central Public Information Officer
O/o Chief Executive Officer, Engineering Section,
Cantonment Board Meerut,
Meerut Cantt (U.P.) - 250 001
1
6. Central Public Information Officer
HQ Paschim UP Sub Area, PIN - 900 468
C/o 56 APO
...Respondents
Date of Hearing : 15/02/2023 Date of Decision : 15/02/2023
Note: There are 12 cases of the same appellant listed for hearing on 15.02.2023. The information sought is pertaining to the unauthorised construction in the area of the Cantonment Board Meerut. Even though some of the RTI applications were filed with different public authorities under the Ministry of Defence, the matter appears to be related to Meerut Cantonment and hence are being adjudicated together.
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Piyush Gautam, Assistant Engineer and CPIO, present over VC at Meerut alongwith Kiran Bala; Brigadier Vikas Mohan and Col Gautam, CPIO Central Command, present over VC at Lucknow; Gurbachan Kaur Nagra, CPIO (Cantts), present over VC at CIC File No. RTI CPIO Reply First Appeal FAA Order Second Appeal Application dated dated dated dated dated 119389 30/11/2021 01/01/2022 27/02/2022 19/03/2022 20/04/2022 123072 30/11/2021 10/12/2021 25/02/2022 Not on Record 08/05/2022 122779 29/11/2021 26/02/2022 28/02/2022 Not on Record 09/05/2022 119512 30/11/2021 28/02/2022 01/03/2022 Not on Record 22/04/2022 145507 15/03/2022 24/03/2022 09/05/2022 29/07/2022 20/09/2022 110213 15/09/2021 11/10/2021 08/11/2021 06/12/2021 27/02/2022 118465 14/02/2022 07/03/2022 15/03/2022 28/03/2022 10/04/2022 109900 08/09/2021 08/10/2021 02/11/2021 03/12/2021 26/02/2022 110151 01/11/2021 30/11/2021 21/12/2021 Not on Record 28/02/2022 119088 30/11/2021 26/02/2022 28/02/2022 30/03/2022 18/04/2022 109910 08/09/2021 08/10/2021 01/11/2021 03/12/2021 24/02/2022 120254 30/11/2021 26/02/2022 02/03/2022 Not on Record 24/04/2022 2 The cases were segregated subject-matter wise in two groups.
Group A Sl. No. File Number Information Sought 1. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/119389 The appellant has sought the following
information with reference to his complaint dated 20-10-2021, pertaining to the unauthorised construction in the area of the Cantonment Board Meerut:
1. Provide details of action taken in respect of his complaint dated 20/10/2021 sent to GOC-in-C, Central Command regarding the said unauthorised construction in Meerut Cantt.
2. Provide copies of challan, reports, other documents, etc. prepared in connection with the said unauthorised construction
2. CIC/DIGDE/A/2022/123072 The appellant has sought the following information with reference to his complaint dated 20-10-2021, pertaining to the unauthorised construction in the area of the Cantonment Board Meerut:
1. Provide details of action taken in respect of his complaint dated 20/10/2021 sent to PDDE, Central Command regarding the said unauthorised construction in Meerut Cantt.
2. Provide copies of challan, reports, other documents, etc. prepared in connection with the said unauthorised construction
3. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/122779 The appellant has sought the following information with reference to his complaint dated 20-10-2021, pertaining to the unauthorised construction in the area of the Cantonment Board Meerut:
1. Provide details of action taken in respect of his complaint dated 20/10/2021 sent to Defence Minister, Government of India, regarding the said unauthorised 3 construction in Meerut Cantt.
2. Provide copies of challan, reports, other documents, etc. prepared in connection with the said unauthorised construction.
3. Provide details of the concerned CPIO, who would provide the sought for information.
4. CIC/IARMY/A/2022/119512 The appellant has sought the following information with reference to his complaint dated 20-10-2021, pertaining to the unauthorised construction in the area of the Cantonment Board Meerut:
1. Provide details of action taken in respect of his complaint dated 20/10/2021 sent to Chairman, Cantonment Board, Meerut, regarding the said unauthorised construction in Meerut Cantt.
2. Provide copies of challan, reports, other documents, etc. prepared in connection with the said unauthorised construction
5. CIC/IARMY/A/2022/145507 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the details of action taken by the CEO, Cantt Board, Meerut in respect of complaint dated 08/11/2021 sent to Stn HQ, Meerut, regarding illegal construction/encroachment being done at the residential bungalows in the area of the Meerut Cantt. Also provide copies of the file notings related to the same.
2. Provide copies of the challans, reports, documents, etc. prepared in connection with the illegal constructions being carried out at Bungalow numbers mentioned in the RTI application
10. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/119088 The appellant has sought the following information with reference to his complaint dated 20-10-2021, pertaining to the unauthorised construction in the area of the Cantonment Board Meerut:4
1. Provide details of action taken in respect of his complaint dated 20/10/2021 sent to DGDE, Delhi Cantt, regarding the said unauthorised construction in Meerut Cantt.
2. Provide copies of challan, reports, other documents, etc. prepared in connection with the said unauthorised construction.
3. Provide details of the concerned CPIO, who would provide the sought for information.
12. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/120254 The appellant has sought the following information with reference to his complaint dated 20-10-2021, pertaining to the unauthorised construction in the area of the Cantonment Board Meerut:
1. Provide details of action taken in respect of his complaint dated 20/10/2021 sent to District Magistrate, UP, regarding the said unauthorised construction in Meerut Cantt.
2. Provide copies of challan, reports, other documents, etc. prepared in connection with the said unauthorised construction Group B Sl. No. File Number Information Sought
6. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/110213 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the list containing name of the owner, address and survey No. of properties in the Civil Area, Meerut Cantt, in respect of which notices under PPE Act were issued for carrying out illegal construction during the period from 01/04/2020 to 31/08/2021. Also, provide copies of the notices issued.
2. Out of the properties mentioned in 5 point 1 above, against how many properties the order has been issued under PPE Act.
Provide the date/ letter No. and the copy of the order issued.
3. Provide the list containing name of owner, address and survey No. of properties in Bungalow Area, in respect of which notices under PPE Act were issued for illegal construction during 01/04/2020 to 31/08/2021. Also, provide copies of the notices issued.
4. Out of the properties mentioned in point 3 above, against how many properties the order has been issued under PPE Act.
Provide the date/ letter No. and the copy of the order issued
7. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/118465 The appellant has sought the following information related to his complaint dated 17/01/2022:
1. Provide the copy of the application submitted by Sh. Chhida Pal for running a shop in public place in the Kala Mandir street. Also provide a copy of the permission given by the Cantt Board Meerut for the same.
2. Provide the copy of the application submitted by Mr. Amit Pal S/o Sh. Chhida Pal for running a shop in public place in the Kala Mandir street. Also provide a copy of the permission given by the Cantt Board Meerut for the same.
3. Provide the copy of the application submitted by Mr. Kuldeep Pal, Son-in-law of Sh. Chhida Pal for running a shop in public place in the Kala Mandir street. Also provide a copy of the permission given by the Cantt Board Meerut for the same.
4. And other related information
8. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/109900 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide details of the residential properties in respect of which maps have been approved during the period from 6 August 2015 to 30 April 2019. Provide the list, address with survey number.
2. Provide details of the commercial properties in respect of which maps have been approved during the period from August 2015 to 30 April 2019. Provide the list, address with survey number.
3. Provide details of the commercial properties in respect of which repairing work has been approved by the Cantonment Board during the period from August 2015 to 30 April 2019.
4. Provide details of the residential properties in respect of which repairing work has been approved by the Cantonment Board during the period from August 2015 to 30 April 2019.
9. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/110151 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide copies of the Agenda Items and Minutes of the meetings of the Cantonment Board held during the period from 01/07/2021 to 31/10/2021.
2. Provide copies of the file notings and related documents in respect of the proposals / Agenda Items submitted for consideration in the meetings of the Cantonment Board during the period from 01/07/2021 to 31/10/2021.
11. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/109910 The appellant has sought the following information with reference to the complaint given by Mr. Kamal Singh Yadav, Draftsman, to CEO, CBM, in between the period from 14/08/2015 to 20/08/2015:
1. Provide a copy of the dak receipt register wherein the said complaint made by Mr. Kamal Singh had been registered.
2. Provide a copy of the file noting related to the above said complaint.
3. Provide the name, designation of the chain of officers to whom the above said complaint was forwarded for taking action.
4. And other related information 7 Grounds for filing Second Appeals:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that satisfactory replies were not provided for any of the above-mentioned cases.
The CPIO, Meerut Cantonment vide the written submissions dated 13.02.2023 submitted that the complainant sent complaints to the Cantonment Board, higher authorities and Ministry of Defence with allegations stating therein that hundreds of constructions are going on in Meerut Cantt. Thereafter, the appellant filed several similar RTI applications asking about action taken on his complaint before the CPIO of Cantt Board as well as CPIO's higher authorities/MoD, first appeals and thereafter second appeals however, the information was already provided by the CPIO Cantt Board. He further submitted that the CPIO Cantonment Board received the RTI application on 29.11.2021 which was replied to vide letter dated 30.12.2022 and fee/charges for providing the documents was demanded. The applicant failed to deposit the fee but filed a first appeal before FAA. The FAA granted opportunity to the appellant to deposit the fee against copying charges. All desired documents were provided by the CPIO Cantt Board vide letter dated 13.05.2022 after deposition of the fee by the appellant.
He further submitted that since the complaint was pertaining to the Cantt Board Meerut, all higher authorities forwarded the same to the Cantt Board Meerut under intimation to the complainant. The RTI applications filed were also transferred by the authorities to the CPIO u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. Even after receiving replies and photocopies of documents in reference to his complaint/RTI applications from the CPIO Cantt Board Meerut, the appellant kept on filing the RTI applications and appeals in a twisted manner asking about file noting etc on the issue from all the authorities which in turn came to the CPIO who had already provided all the documents on record. This act of the appellant caused bundles of correspondence between various offices and hampered the office work on the issue.
8On the above issue he pointed out that the Cantt Board is taking strict action against the violators and planned to demolish the identified unauthorised constructions/encroachments from Lalkurti area of Meerut Cantonment. During survey by the Cantonment Board staff the complainant noticed that an action is scheduled and started spreading the news that he can influence the Cantt Board for taking or not taking action. He tried to collect the offenders together to sabotage the campaign by the Board since Cantt Board was approaching police authorities for assistance. He started filing these complaints/RTIs and it seems that the complainant has tried to involve himself in course of action by the Board against an unauthorised construction which is liable to be demolished by the Cantt Board and in that case , the complaint has no locus standi. The appellant files RTI applications in the form of complaints to sensationalise his statements against Government officials. The Cantt Board has carried out large scale encroachment/demolition drive on 08.02.2023 and 28 nos of encroachments in the shape of houses, dairies and other rooms structures have been demolished for which the appellant was making complaint and pressurising to issue fresh notices so that the process may be delayed.
Observations:
In respect of case nos. 1 to 5, 10 and 12 the Commission observed that the action taken in respect of his complaints dated 20.10.2021 and 08.11.2021 sent to the respondents, regarding unauthorised construction in Meerut Cantt was asked.
The RTI application in case no. 1 was filed with GOC, Central Command on 30.11.2021. However, the same was pertaining to the PIO, Principal Directorate of Defence Estate, Central Command. The then PIO Central Command had provided an interim reply to the appellant on 01.01.2022 and stated that the application has been processed with the custodian of the information. Further, the information will be provided to the appellant on receipt of the same from the custodian. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and filed a first appeal. The FAA in his order dated 19.03.2022 held that the custodian of the information has intimated that the complaint dated 20th Oct 2021 filed by the applicant has been forwarded to the office of Principal Directorate of Defence Estate (PDDE), Central Command for comments. The comments had not been received from PDDE office and 9 accordingly, an interim reply was sent. The FAA after hearing the custodian and the PIO and on scrutiny of the file directed the PIO to transfer the RTI application dated 30 Nov 2021 to the PIO, Principal Directorate of Defence Estate, Central Command forthwith. The Commission observed that the subject matter i.e complaint dated 20th Oct 2021 filed by the applicant was forwarded to the office of Principal Directorate of Defence Estate (PDDE), Central Command. However, as per the CPIO Meerut Cantonment"s written submissions, information sought was already provided.
The RTI application in case no. 2 was filed with the PIO, office of the Principal Directorate of Defence Estate (PDDE), Central Command on 30.11.2021 and the same was replied to by the concerned CPIO (Lands) on 10.12.2021. The CPIO provided a copy of the letter dated 16.11.2021 vide which the applicant's complaint dated 20th Oct 2021 was forwarded to the CEO, Meerut for taking necessary action as per rules. The Commission could not find the annexure in the case file. However, it is clear that the matter pertains to CEO, Meerut. Therefore, the PIO, office of the Meerut Cantonment had explained the action taken and the reply in his written submissions. The reply given by the CPIO (Lands) on 10.12.2021 is otherwise complete and requires no action. The RTI application in case no. 3 was filed with the CPIO, MoD, New Delhi on 29.11.2021. The same was replied to by the Section Officer (RTI) on 19.12.2021 in which he mentioned that the RTI application is being forwarded to D(Q&C) for necessary action as the information sought by the applicant seems to be more closely related to them. As intimated by RMO, the petition dated 20.10.2021 mentioned in the RTI application was forwarded from RMO to JS (L&W) vide Dy. No. 10264 on 01.11.2021. He also mentioned that in case it does not pertain to D(Q&C) the same may be forwarded to the concerned CPIO/Public Authority under intimation to the applicant and not returned to the RTI Cell. Furthermore, a reply dated 26.02.2022 was submitted by the CPIO, Engineering Section, Meerut Cantonment in which the appellant was replied to by informing him that the RTI application was received by them on transfer from the DGDE office on 23.12.2021. He was informed that he had sought similar information on 29.11.2021 from the CPIO and a reply was provided on 30.12.2021. The Commission observed that the appellant was suitably replied to by the CPIO, Meerut Cantonment. The RTI application in case no. 4 was filed with the CPIO, HQ Paschim UP Sub Area on 30.11.2021. The PIO concerned on 09.12.2021 forwarded the RTI 10 application to CEO, Cantt Board, Meerut Cantt with a copy endorsed to the appellant. In March 2022 the same PIO forwarded the first appeal to CEO, Cantt Board stating that the information sought is pertaining to the office of the CEO, Cantt Board. The same was endorsed to the appellant too. It was noted that on 28.02.2022 a reply was provided by the CPIO, Engineering Section, Meerut Cantt in which they submitted that the RTI application was received on transfer vide letter dated 09.12.2021. He was informed that he had sought similar information on 29.11.2021 from the CPIO and a reply was provided on 30.12.2021. The Commission observed that the appellant was suitably replied to by the CPIO, Meerut Cantonment. The RTI application in case no. 5 was filed with the CPIO, Meerut Cantt on 15.03.2022. The same appears to be incorrectly sent to the CPIO, HQ Paschim UP Sub Area. Be that as it may, on 24.03.2022 the appellant was returned the RTI application stating that the matter pertains to Cantt Board and their office does not have any case file/ records of matters pertaining to Cantt Board. He was requested to directly contact Cantt Board for seeking information. The first appeal was subsequently transferred to CEO Cannt Board without considering the fact that the RTI application was not forwarded previously. The FAA, Cantt Board correctly returned the first appeal to the CPIO, HQ Paschim UP Sub Area informing him that the RTI application was never received from them. The Commission observed that the RTI application should have been correctly delivered to the correct CPIO when the appellant had filed it with the CPIO, Meerut Cantt. Be that as it may, the information sought was already given as per the written submissions of the CPIO.
The RTI application in case no. 10 was filed with the CPIO, DGDE Delhi Cantt on 30.11.2021. It was noted that on 26.02.2022 a reply was provided by the CPIO, Engineering Section, Meerut Cantt in which he stated that the RTI application was received on transfer on 23.12.2021. He further stated that the similar information was sought on 29.11.2021 from the CPIO and a reply was provided on 30.12.2021. The Commission observed that the appellant was suitably replied to by the CPIO, Meerut Cantonment. The RTI application in case no. 12 was filed with the CPIO, District Officer, Meerut on 30.11.2021. It was noted that on 26.02.2022 a reply was provided by the CPIO, Engineering Section, Meerut Cantt in which he stated that the RTI application was received on transfer vide letter dated 30.11.2021. He further stated that the similar information was sought on 29.11.2021 from the CPIO 11 and a reply was provided on 30.12.2021. The Commission observed that the appellant was suitably replied to by the CPIO, Meerut Cantonment. From a perusal of the above cases, it is clear that the custodian of the information sought is the CPIO Meerut Cantonment and the reply given on 30.12.2021 is the information provided. The above cases are similar and modified queries relating to the same subject was asked for i.e action taken in respect of his complaints dated 20.10.2021 and 08.11.2021 regarding the said unauthorised construction in Meerut Cantt. Therefore, the contents of the reply dated 30.12.2021 is relevant in all these cases and the CPIO was accordingly asked to read the contents of the reply. With regard to the above mentioned cases, the Commission relied on the order dated 28.10.2022 decided by this bench in the matter of Gagan Thakur vs CPIO, Meerut Cantt. The following are the relevant paras which is relevant in this case also:
"The names of some frequent RTI applicants who file such applications are Avinash Kumar Saxena, Sushil Gandhi, Puneet Sharma, Amit Bansal, Rajeev Bansal, Narinder Singh Nagpal, Gagan Thakur, Sachin Bharti, Sachin Chaudhary, Manoj Chaudhary, Ankush Chaudhary, Varun Aggarwal, Naresh Kumar, Amit Tandon, Mamta Goel and Raisuddin. The Commission could not find any merit in the appellant's second appeals and taking into account the contents of the letter dated 13.08.2021 of the CPIO, finds it appropriate to dismiss all the appeals as frivolous, vexatious and repetitive as done on 01.09.2021 in respect of his 6 appeals. It appears that the appellant is harassing the public authority by these frequent, repetitive, numerous RTI applications. In this regard, it is noteworthy to recall the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in its decision dated 21.09.2021 in the matter of La Fin Financial Services Private Ltd vs Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd while deciding a frivolous application by a plaintiff had observed as under:
"19. Because this is clearly a vexatious and mischievous proceeding that has unnecessarily wasted the Court's time, I can think of no reason to withhold an order of costs against the Plaintiffs. The quantum of costs cannot be trivial. Amended Section 35 clearly intends the power of ordering costs to be used as a deterrent to prevent parties from making such frivolous applications. It would be meaningless to order a paltry amount.12
Plaintiffs such as this one will understand that Courts are not playgrounds, and litigation is not a pastime.
20. There will, therefore, be an order of costs against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant to be paid within two weeks from today in the amount of Rs.25 lakhs. If not paid in that time, the costs will carry interest at 9% per annum, and the Defendant is entitled to put this order into execution against the Plaintiff for recovery of these costs. "
This decision is clearly applicable to all the cases covered in this order. Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission dismisses all the above mentioned appeals being devoid of merit. The appellant is also advised to refrain from misusing the RTI Act to settle personal scores. The appeals are dismissed accordingly."
The case nos. 12,13,14,15 and 17 were also perused and it was noted that in respect of case no. 12 the appellant was informed on 11.10.2021 by the then CPIO (General Section) that no proceedings has been initiated by the earlier or present Estate officer, Meerut from 01.04.2020 to 31.08.2021 under the provisions of the PPE Act, 1971. Further, it was informed that Defence Estate Officer, Meerut circle Meerut is competent to initiate proceedings under PP Act, 1971 in respect of properties situated outside the notified Civil area i.e Bungalow area. In respect of case no. 13 it was noted that a point-wise reply as applicable under the RTI Act was provided on 07.03.2022. In respect of case no. 14 it was noted that on 08.10.2021 a suitable reply was given to the appellant. In respect of case no. 15 it was noted that a suitable reply was given on 30.11.2022 where the available information in public domain was informed. In respect of case no. 17 the appellant was categorically informed that there is no complaint registered for the above-mentioned period as per the Dak register.
On scrutiny of all the cases as bifurcated in group A and B, the Commission could not find any ground to treat the said cases as sincere information seeking RTI applications but rather, multiple, frivolous and vexatious. The land disputes cannot be resolved under the RTI Act and it is a matter of distress to see the misuse of the RTI Act by the appellant.13
Decision:
In view of the above discussion and due to the fact that suitable replies were provided to the appellant, there is no action required in these cases. The appellant is advised to refrain from filing such multiple, vexatious RTI applications on the same subject matter which amounts to harassment of the public authority.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date ANNEXURE Sl. No File Numbers
7. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/119389
8. CIC/DIGDE/A/2022/123072
9. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/122779
10. CIC/IARMY/A/2022/119512
11. CIC/IARMY/A/2022/145507
12. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/110213
13. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/118465
14. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/109900
15. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/110151
16. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/119088
17. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/109910
18. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/120254 14