Central Information Commission
Kamal Verma vs Prasar Bharati Secretariat on 8 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/PBSEC/A/2021/154221
Kamal Verma ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Prasar Bharati, Akashvani
Almora, RTI Cell, Almora Road,
Khatyari, Almora - 263601, Uttarakhand. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/02/2023
Date of Decision : 30/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/02/2021
CPIO replied on : 04/03/2021
First appeal filed on : 30/03/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/12/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.02.2021 seeking the following information:1
The CPIO, AIR, Almora furnished a reply to the appellant on 04.03.2021 stating as under:-
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.03.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
The Appellant was again requested by the CPIO vide an email of 23.07.2021 to visit AIR Almora to inspect the desired records.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: B S Joshal, DDG (E) & CPIO present through intra-video conference.2
The Appellant stated that he has not received any reply from the CPIO, upon being remarked by the Commission, that the reply of 04.03.2021 was enclosed with the Second Appeal by the Appellant himself, the Appellant quickly retorted that the said reply does not contain any information.
B S Joshal, DDG (E) & CPIO was unable to present the case, so the Commission referred to the written submissions filed by the CPIO prior to the hearing wherein the following was stated:
Upon a further query from the Commission as to whether the Appellant has availed of the opportunity to inspect the records as offered by the CPIO of AIR: Almora, the Appellant morosely replied that he does not have the time to inspect records.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Concededly, the information sought for in the RTI Application entails voluminous records and requires collection and collation which may result in disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. In this regard, reference shall be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:3
"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. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). 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 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Now, the Appellant has not put forth any substantial ground for his dissatisfaction with the reply of the CPIO, moreover, the reason tendered by him during the hearing is rather startling to note. It appears that the Appellant has no intention to access information under the RTI Act and is merely wasting the time and resources of the public authority and the Commission.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5