Central Information Commission
Mohit vs Ministry Of Petroleum & Natural Gas on 27 July, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/ONGCL/C/2022/623042
CIC/ONGCL/C/2022/623046
CIC/MOPNG/C/2022/623048
Shri Mohit िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
ONGC, VasantKunj,
New Delhi
CPIO
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,
New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 26.07.2023
Date of Decision : 27.07.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO Complaint
No. on dated
623042 21.11.2021 - - - 17.04.2022
623046 21.11.2021 - - - 17.04.2022
623048 21.11.2021 - - - 17.04.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/ONGCL/C/2022/623042 (2) CIC/ONGCL/C/2022/623046 (3) CIC/MOPNG/C/2022/623048 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.11.2021seeking the following information:-Page 1 of 12
Having not received any response from the PIO, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Complainant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent represented by Ms. Seema M. Bara, GM (HR) & CPIO, ONGC, Ms. Ruchika B. Tirkey, Deputy Assistant/ONGCand Shri Ravi Pande, CPIO & Under Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Ravi Pande, submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to the records held by ONGC and accordingly their office has transferred the RTI Application to ONGC vide letter dated 30.11.2021.
Ms. Seema M. Bara, submitted that the actual cause of action in these cases originates out of the Complainant's grievance regarding his termination from Apprenticeship Training due to several complaints by a lady apprentice alleging inappropriate behavior of the Complainant. Ms. Bara further added that while considering his averred representation dated 09.12.2018, the Competent Authority had decided to extend financial assistance to the Complainant by providing the stipend for his leftover apprenticeship period amounting to Rs. 78,742/- though the tenure of his apprenticeship was terminated on 31.07.2018. She furthermore submitted that several reminders were sent to the Complainant regarding verification of his account details but to no avail because of which the amount could not be released. She added that the Complainant has filed more than 15 RTI Applications on the same subject matter which stands disposed of as per their database.Page 2 of 12
A written submission in CIC/ONGCL/C/2022/623042has been received from Shri Ravi Pande, CPIO & Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, vide letter dated 19.07.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
A written submission has been received from Ms. Seema M. Bara, GM (HR) & CPIO, ONGC, vide letter dated 20.07.2023, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 3 of 12 Page 4 of 12 Page 5 of 12
A written submission in CIC/MOPNG/C/2022/623048has been received from Shri Ravi Pande, CPIO & Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, vide letter dated 19.07.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 6 of 12
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that the instant Complaints are filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause which the Commission is unable to conclude in the present instance. However, before parting with the case, Ms. Seema M. Bara, GM (HR) & CPIO, ONGC,is cautioned to act strictly within the precincts of the RTI Act and observe the timelines stringently, in future.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes that the actual cause of action in these cases originates out of the Complainant's grievance regarding his termination from ONGC for which he has filed repetitive RTI Applications Page 7 of 12 resulted in burdening the Respondent who would have to divert disproportionate resources to respond to such a litany of questions, neglecting other pressing duties. The Courts have on various instances observed that the right to information is a cherished and formidable tool in the hands of a sensitive citizenry and this tool is meant to be used diligently. Though the legislation has not manifestly restricted the scope of usage of the right to seek Information, but the same is inherent. The preamble and object of the RTI Act categorically state that the RTI Act is meant to set out a practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities.
The expression "practical regime" mentioned in the very preamble of this welfare legislation cannot be overlooked and must act as a guiding light while reckoning the extent of right to secure access to information. Any right cannot be unbounded or aimless nor can any right be enjoyed without observing the duty and responsibility that comes with it. A right cannot be enforced to such an extent that the underlying objective behind its parent statute gets defeated. A right ought to be exercised with responsibility. Reckless exercise of the right will defeat the purpose of the statute bestowing that right upon the individual. In the facts of the present cases, the act of lodging RTI applications en bloc is not in consonance with the object of the statute. On this aspect, it is pertinent to place reliance on the ratio expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. [MANU/SC/0932/2011] in the following words:
37. ..... 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 prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
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. ...."
Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the Apex Court had discussed the issue 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:
Page 8 of 12".........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 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 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 second 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 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of ShailSahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar &Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed that:
Page 9 of 12"........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 In the matter of RajniMaindiratta- 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 has 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 dicta essentially acknowledges that the misuse of the RTI Act is a well recognized problem and citizens such as the Complainant should take note that their right to information is not absolute.
The Apex Court in a vital decision has categorically cautioned thus:
"...The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and
(j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well-informed democracy is transparency.
However it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. 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 Page 10 of 12 authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use.."(The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336).
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and not to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of HansiRawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Filing a series of RTI applications and flooding the CPIOs with varied queries is not in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. This Commission being a creature of the RTI Act is duty bound to preserve the ethos propounded by the statute. The average time taken for a second appeal/ complaint to be heard in the Commission is more than a year. As rightly said, justice delayed is justice denied. Timely dispensation of justice is essential. A single information seeker cannot usurp a collective right to the detriment of all others having an identical right nor should a person be allowed to file indiscriminate and unchecked Complaints/Second Appeals so as to clog the system of adjudication itself to the disadvantage of others. It will lead to a colossal waste of time and resources of the Commission which has the obligation to cater to thousands of genuine Page 11 of 12 information seekers facing hurdles. The means adopted by the Complainant of inundating the Public Authority with multiple RTI cases unfortunately only points to the ignorance of the Complainant about the spirit of the RTI Act In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further direction is necessary and the Complaints are dismissed as such.
Y. K. Sinha (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 12 of 12