Central Information Commission
Rosie vs Central Soil & Materials Research ... on 19 April, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/901715/MP
Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001253/MP
Appellant : Shri Rosie Ahuja, New Delhi
Public Authority : M/o Water Resources, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : March 27, 2017
Date of Decision : April 17, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Not Present
Respondent : Not Present
RTI application : 02.10.2015
CPIO's reply : 05.11.2015
First appeal : 04.12.2015
FAA's Order : 08.01.2016
Second appeal : 02.04.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Rosie Ahuja, the appellant, sought information as to whether or not MOWR had processed any regular promotion cases or appeared as respondent for any court case for granting retrospective promotion to Scientist B, C, D, E (FCS Cadre) of Central Soil and Materials Research Station (CSMRS), Delhi; whether any regular promotions or retrospective promotions were granted on the orders of Hon'ble Courts during the time period of 1999-2010, based on modified Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) Rules (DoPT OM No. 2/41/97-PIC dated 09.11.1998) to Sc. C, Sc. D and Sc. E of CSMRS, Delhi; etc., through 13 points.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) forwarded a copy of reply in respect of the requested information as received from the Administration, to the appellant, denying the information sought on the ground that it was interrogatory in nature and hence, did not qualify as 'information' under the RTI Act, 2005. However, the appellant was given an opportunity to visit the office of the respondent and inspect all the relevant files relating to promotion/court cases in CSMRS and also to take copy of the relevant extracts as required by him. Aggrieved with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stating that inspection of the relevant files would serve no purpose and requested the FAA to provide him the desired information, instead. The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. Dissatisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the CPIO & FAA did not provide any information as he had preferred being provided the relevant information instead of inspecting the files concerned and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide him the requisite information.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. None of the parties were present at the time of hearing. The appellant in his RTI applications had sought information regarding promotions given to Scientist B, C, D and E (FCS Cadre) of Central Soil and Materials Research Station (CSMRS), Delhi and court cases in which CSMRS was involved with respect to the subject matter in question.
4. The respondent in its written submissions stated that the appellant had been given an opportunity by the FAA vide order dated 08.01.2016, to visit the office of the respondent authority and inspect the relevant files relating to the promotion/court cases in CSMRS and take copy of the relevant extracts as per his requirement but, the applicant did not avail the opportunity. The respondent further submitted that the appellant had been seeking his assessment for promotion though, subsequently, he was declared unfit for promotion to the post of Scientist 'C' by UPSC and thereafter, he had been filing numerous RTI applications, grievances and representations before several authorities. The respondent added that the appellant had, based on his earlier RTI application dated 04.04.2014, sought promotional details of Scientists B, C, D and E (FCS Cadre) of CSMRS, Delhi, who had approached various courts for redressal of their grievances as their promotion had become due and this Commission vide its order dated 28.10.2015 in Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2014/902627/8900 allowed him to inspect the relevant files which, the appellant did not bother to avail. The respondent however, has again offered the appellant to visit the Research Station and inspect the relevant files. The respondent cited pre-engagement of the CPIO concerned with some urgent work and that he was on training between 20.03.2017 to 31.03.2017, for his failure to attend the hearing, in person, on the stipulated date and requested for condonation of delay.
5. On the basis of records available with it and written submissions made by the respondent in this regard, the Commission observes that having regard to the voluminous information sought by the appellant provision of which will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, its officials cannot be expected to devote all of their time in collating such vast information for the convenience of the appellant. This view has also been endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay which is produced hereunder in support of the Commission's order:
"37. 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, tranquillity 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."
6. The appellant, is therefore, denied information u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 as he cannot be allowed to misuse the RTI forum, more so when the Act empowers the applicant to inspect works, documents and records of a public authority and obtain relevant extracts there from, as a part of his 'right to information' u/s 2(j) of the Act, an opportunity, which was duly given to the appellant by the respondent authority on various occasions but, was not availed by him. The Commission, therefore, holds that the CPIO had appropriately responded in the matter. The Commission, however, directs the CPIO to submit his explanation for not attending the hearing within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission and is advised for future hearings to depute some other officer in his place as either the CPIO or the FAA should attend the hearing as far as possible. The appeal is disposed of. This also disposes of case no. CIC/BS/A/2016/001253/MP seeking identical information.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer, The First Appellate Authority Ministry of Water Resources, River Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation, Development & Ganga Rejuvenation, Central Soil and Materials Research Central Soil and Materials Research Station, Olof Palme Marg, Hauz Khas, Station, Olof Palme Marg, Hauz Khas Near IIT Hostel, New Delhi - 110016 Near IIT Hostel, New Delhi - 110016 Shri Rosie Ahuja, Block- E-3, House No. 6, Ground Floor, Sector -16, Rohini, Delhi - 110089