Central Information Commission
G L N Prasad vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 18 August, 2023
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/MOPNG/C/2022/122453
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/122815
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/122277
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/123071
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/124127
CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/127233/C
Shri G L N Prasad ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, M/o Petroleum & Natural Gas ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri A K Sinha - US
2. PIO, BPCL
Through: Smt. Usha Popat - Chief Manager;
Shri Prakash Parate - DGM, Co ordination;
Shri Varun Ramdas - Territory Co ordinator
BPCL Vijayawada Territory
Date of Hearing : 17.08.2023
Date of Decision : 18.08.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from the Complaints/Appellant:
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 received on
122453 14.03.2022 24.03.2022 10.04.2022 - 11.05.2022
122815 07.04.2022 04.05.2022 07.05.2022 - 13.05.2022
122277 05.04.2022 02.05.2022 04.05.2022 - 11.05.2022
123071 08.04.2022 04.05.2022 08.05.2022 - 17.05.2022
124127 16.04.2022 12.05.2022 16.05.2022 - 23.05.2022
127233 06.04.2022 23.05.2022 30.05.2022 - 08.06.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
Page 1 of 16(1) CIC/MOPNG/C/2022/122453 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.03.2022 raising 8 queries, some of which are as under:-
Reference FAA/ Deputy Secretary, MoPNG Order no. 000043/Appeals- OMC dt, 3rd Mar, 2022
1. Please provide certified copy of Single correct complete and relevant reply from Dec. 2007 till date either BPCL or by Ministry on subject.
The allegation is on ministry presenting fundamentally wrong facts in replies to the study committee of Members of Parliament, as learned and honorable FAA in his quasi judicial authority has replied that both Ministry and BPCL has replied 150 applications from last 10 years.
2. Please provide the copy of such record basing on which FAA has judged in his quasi judicial authority of that seeking information on the allegation of ministry presenting fundamentally wrong facts in replies to the Study committee of Members of Parliament amounts to "trying to settle family disputes by trying to involve BPCL and ministry with regard to the RO site leased to Burma shell/BPCL.
3. Please provide as to whether replies were submitted by Ministry or by BPCL to Parliament members, and name of the ultimate victim of the fraudulent misrepresentations made to Honorable Members of Parliament, and the specific authority accountable for such Fraudulent misrepresentations.
Etc. The PIO/Under Secretary, MoPNG vide letter dated 24.03.2023 replied as under:-
Point No. (1) to 3) -Copies of the BPCL letter No. BPCL.RTI.AP dated 26.07.2018 and Ministry's letter o. M-12043(11)/419-OMC-PNG dated 12th January 2020 are enclosed.
Point No. (4) to (8) -the requisite information regarding grievances filed by the applicant with BPCL and opportunity of personal hearing the RTI applications is being transferred under section 6(3) to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) for providing the requisite information to the applicant directly as the information is lying with BPCL.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.4.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 2 of 16A written submission dated 04.08.2023 has been received from the Complainant and duly taken on record.
Another written submission dated 10.08.2023 has been received from the PIO, MoPNG providing detailed information regarding the background of the dispute which gave rise to the aforementioned case.
(2) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/122815 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.04.2022 seeking information on four points:-
1. Please inform the law on which BPCL can occupy a land for 35 years without any registered lease since 1-5-1980 when the law permits them for 30 days.
The laid down Regulation that states the procedure of arranging lease rent to dead lesser PV Ramasastry through dealer VM Sastry since Oct. 98.
2. Please inform the law/process for lessee BPCL in attorning some other as landowners when the matter is pending for adjudication since 09-06-99 and retail out let possession was given first by PV Krishnaiah H/o Sugunavati to Burma shell violating "Doctrine of Estoppels" (Sec.116 of Indian Evidence Act)
3. Please inform the reasons for not providing such documents of offer of lease to several persons while enjoying possession given by PV Krishnaiah, as such attempts are permissible only after giving possession to PV Krishnaiah's legal heirs and in case they make such claims and possession their rights as lessee stand forfeited.- (111(g) TOP Act
4. Please provide the Copy of recommendations/sanctions for delivering the property taken from PV Krishnaiah, later his son PV Ramasastry to others as such action is illegal as per 111 g of Property act and Sec.116 of IEA/treacherous.
The PIO & Deputy General Manager, BPCLD, Telangana vide letter dated 04.05.2022 replied as under:-
"The information sought by you under point No. 1 to 4 is denied as you are third party and there is no public interest involved at large."
Your mother in law, Mrs. P. Sugunavati who was neither our Dealer nor Lessor and is no more. This information of her demise we gathered during CIC hearing 21.04.2022. We were not aware about demise of Mrs. P. Sugunavati.
Page 3 of 16In the changed scenario now when Mrs. P. Sugunavati is no more, you and your wife still continue seeking information about a closed Outlet of BPCL on which you have a personal family dispute.
Kindly refer point No. 9 of CIC decision dated 23rd February 2015 of IC Sri Sharat Sabharwal. Copy enclosed for your ready reference."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 07.5.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission dated 04.08.2023 has been received from the Complainant and duly taken on record.
Another written submission dated 08.08.2023 has been received from the PIO, BPCL reiterating the aforementioned facts and adding as under:
"It is a fact that Mrs. P. Sugunavati and her daughter Mrs. G. Raja Rajeshwari and her Son in Law, Mr. G.L.N. Prasad, have been jointly and individually filing large number of RTI applications for the last 12 years from the same address supplementing and substituting each other's application's, on the same subject which have all been answered with all the available details and documents".
We have still NOT received the following documents from Appellant/her representatives:
1. Succession certificate of deceased Mrs. P. Sugunavati mentioning Mrs. G. Raja Rajeswari as one of Legal Heirs of Mrs. P. Sugunavati.
2. Succession certificate of the Lessor of the Retail Outlet land mentioning Mrs. P. Sugunavati as one of her Legal Heirs of the Lessor of the Retail Outlet land.
3. Authority letter of Mrs. P. Sugunavati & Mrs. G. Raja Rajeswari authorizing Mr. G.LN. Prasad to attend the CIC hearing of 21.04.2022.
Hence in the absence of receipt of the above documents from the representatives of Mrs. P. Sugunavati, we are unable to provide any information, For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that the second appeal may be dismissed with strictures and cost. Also request to accord a personal hearing to us at the earliest so that we can put forward our submission and close this case once for all.
We also would like to inform you that Mr. Varun T Ramdas, Territory coordinator, BPCL Vijayawada Territory would be attending the said hearing scheduled on 17.08.2023 at 12:40 PM. in place of me, as I am attending outstation official meeting on 17.08.2023.
Page 4 of 16Mr. Varun T Ramdas is fully aware about the matter and he would be attending with full facts and documents, as this matter pertains to Vijayawada BPCL Retail Territory.
(3) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/122277 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.04.2022 seeking following information:-
Please provide such certified copy of a public record of Burma shell as stated to USMPNG/Loksabha, CIC CVC but not provided before courts in ASMP 2497/2014 when summoned.
1. The records that state existence of promissory note dt. 23.10.1964 Rs.
52,000/- executed by PV Ramasastry together with VV Ramasastry and his undivided sons in favour of Burma shell as stated by BPCL, when there was never any such promissory note at all (This query No. v of MPNG letter).
2. The records that state that VV Ramasastry has paid Rs. 22,000/- dues of M/s PV Krishnaiah & Co to Burma shell & others as per letter of CPIO dt.14.03.2008 (Query No. vi) The PIO/Deputy General Manager-BNP(Retail), BPCL, Andhra Pradesh & Telangana vide letter dated 02.05.2022 replied as under:-
" The information sought by you under point No. 1and 2 is denied as you are third party and there is no public interest involved at large.
Your mother in law, Mrs. P. Sugunavati who was neither our Dealer nor Lessor and is no more. This information of her demise we gathered during CIC hearing 21.04.2022. We were not aware about demise of Mrs. P. Sugunavati.
In the changed scenario now when Mrs. P. Sugunavati is no more, you and your wife still continue seeking information about a closed Outlet of BPCL on which you have a personal family dispute.
Kindly refer point No. 9 of CIC decision dated 23rd February 2015 of IC Sri Sharat Sabharwal. Copy enclosed for your ready reference."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 04.5.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 5 of 16A written submission dated 08.08.2023 has been received from the PIO, BPCL reiterating the aforementioned facts in the line of the submissions filed in the abovementioned cases.
A written submission dated 10.08.2023 has been received from the Complainant and duly taken on record.
(4) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/123071 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2022 seeking the following information:-
Please provide single public record basing on which BPCL has been stating for 14 years that VV Sastry has repaid Rs. 52,000/- to Burma shell and others (14-03-2008 OS 103/08 exhibit) on behalf of PV Ramasastry.
When The Truth Well Known to BPCL was their own document 26-10-1964 confirmed that PV Ramasastry was never ultimately indebted to Burma shell at all and BPCL has not provided single piece of document as counter for all the fraudulent averments to any applicant and Members of Parliament that VV Sastry has paid amounts to Burma shell for and on behalf of PV Ramasastry.
The PIO/Deputy General Manager-BNP (Retail), BPCL, Andhra Pradesh & Telangana vide letter dated 04.05.2022 replied as under:-
" The information sought by you is denied as you are third party and there is no public interest involved at large.
Your mother in law, Mrs. P. Sugunavati who was neither our Dealer nor Lessor and is no more. This information of her demise we gathered during CIC hearing 21.04.2022. We were not aware about demise of Mrs. P. Sugunavati.
In the changed scenario now when Mrs. P. Sugunavati is no more, you and your wife still continue seeking information about a closed Outlet of BPCL on which you have a personal family dispute.
Kindly refer point No. 9 of CIC decision dated 23rd February 2015 of IC Sri Sharat Sabharwal. Copy enclosed for your ready reference."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 08.05.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Page 6 of 16Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission dated 08.08.2023 has been received from the PIO, BPCL reiterating the aforementioned facts.
A written submission dated 04.08.2023 has been received from the Complainant and duly taken on record.
(5) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/124127 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2022 seeking the following information:-
1. Please provide such certified copy of a public record based on which BPCL has been stating since 14-03-2008 to this date that stated VV Sastry has repaid even a single rupee to Burmashell (BPCL statement is that he has repaid Rs.
52,000) for and on behalf of PV Krishnaiah & CO dealership firm when their records dt. 26.10.1964 never disclosed single paisa due and confirmed huge refunds to the Regd firm.
2. Please provide an action taken on Mr. Pentakota Jagnnatha Rao who has in the discharge of his functions made fraudulent misrepresentations to the investigating officer CI of police Nagarampalem, as every sentence in such statement was false and fraudulent and a complaint was made to CVO, BPCL, Territory Manager, Vijaywada, had retail south on 02.08.2018.
Etc. The PIO/Deputy General Manager-BNP(Retail), BPCL, Andhra Pradesh & Telangana vide letter dated 12.05.2022 replied as under:-
" The information sought by you under point No. 1 to 4 is denied as you are third party and there is no public interest involved at large.
Your mother in law, Mrs. P. Sugunavati who was neither our Dealer nor Lessor and is no more. This information of her demise we gathered during CIC hearing 21.04.2022. We were not aware about demise of Mrs. P. Sugunvati.
In the changed scenario now when Mrs. P. Sugunavati is no more, you and your wife still continue seeking information about a closed Outlet of BPCL on which you have a personal family dispute.
Kindly refer point No. 9 of CIC decision dated 23rd February 2015 of IC Sri Sharat Sabharwal. Copy enclosed for your ready reference."Page 7 of 16
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.5.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 04.08.2023 has been received from the Complainant and duly taken on record.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. The relevant parties were present for hearing and the Complainant reiterated his contentions as submitted vide his written notes and stated that information has been wrongly denied to him on the ground that it refers to personal information of third party. He contended that the information sought by him relates to a piece of land which was owned by his deceased father-in-law and mother-in-law, and he as the son-in-law cannot be treated as a third party. He has also raised objection on the fact that procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act was not followed by the Respondent while denying the information.
The Respondent submitted that Mrs. P. Sugunavati and her daughter Mrs. G. Raja Rajeshwari and her Son in Law, Mr. G.L.N. Prasad, have been jointly and individually filing large number of RTI applications for the last 12 years from the same address supplementing and substituting each other's application's, on the same subject which have all been answered with all the available details and documents. The Complainant and his family members have filed numerous RTI applications since 2008 seeking information about the retail outlet site leased to the erstwhile Burma Shell. It is the Respondent's contention that all the information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been furnished in response to the numerous RTI cases filed by the Complainant and his family members. The Respondent has summarised the more than 200 letters and replies sent so far by BPCL to the various RTI applications filed by late Mrs. P. Sugunavati (Mother in law of Mr. G.L.N. Prasad, Appellant) and Mrs. G Raja Rajeshwari (wife of Mr. G.L.N. Prasad Appellant).
Decision Perusal of records of the aforementioned cases reveals that among the multiple cases filed by him, the two recent cases heard by a co ordinate Bench are most noteworthy. While deciding the second appeal number CIC/BPCLD/A/2020/121930 [Mrs. P Sugunavati vs. CPIO, BPCL] by order dated 21.04.2022, it was held as under:Page 8 of 16
"..8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding certified copies of the written statement filed by BPCL in eviction suit and other queries related thereto. The Commission observes that the representative of appellant's legal heir has contended that Mrs. G Rajarajeshwari, being the legal heir of the deceased appellant, is entitled to receive the information sought in the instant RTI Application. The then CPIO in its reply dated 01.06.2020 submitted that they have furnished complete information to the appellant as per the documents available on record. But, while making oral submissions during the hearing, the present CPIO has taken different stand by stating that the information sought cannot be provided being related to third party personal information and the disclosure of such information is exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005...... ..........
10. Therefore, in view of the above observations and in the interest of justice, the Commission advises the representative of the appellant's legal heir to furnish the proof of Mrs. G Rajarajeshwari being a legal heir of deceased appellant. He is also directed to furnish a copy of authorization letter from Mrs. G Rajarajeshwari in his favour in order to enable him to receive the information on her behalf from respondent public authority..."
On a subsequent occasion, the same Bench while deciding another second appeal number CIC/BPCLD/A/2021/100773 vide order dated 10.08.2022, held as under:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding her property which is taken on lease by BPCL and other queries related thereto. Shri G.L.N. Prasad, appeared on behalf of the appellant has contended that he being the power of attorney holder of the appellant, is entitled to receive the requested information. In this regard, the Commission is of the opinion that firstly, the appellant is expired and as per law, power of attorney only subsists if the appellant is alive and not after her death. The Commission observes that Shri G.L.N. Prasad further referred a case bearing file no. CIC/BPCL/A/2020/121930 wherein the Commission had directed the respondent to provide information to him, hence in lieu of the same, he pressed on to provide him the requested information in the present case also. The Commission has gone through the contents of the said case and found that Shri G.L.N. Prasad had claimed to be authorized by Mrs. G. Rajarajeshwari (deceased appellant's legal heir) to receive such information on her behalf. Hence, the Commission had directed the respondent to provide the information to Shri G.L.N. Prasad on receipt of proof of Mrs. G. Rajarajeshwari being a legal heir of deceased appellant Page 9 of 16 along with copy of authorization letter from Mrs. G. Rajarajeshwari in favor of Shri G.L.N. Prasad in the said case. But, in the present case, neither Shri G.L.N. Prasad is authorized to receive the requested information nor he has pressed to furnish any authority letter to receive the information, hence, the information as sought in the present matter cannot be provided to him.
8. In light of the above observations, the Commission is of the opinion that Shri G.L.N. Prasad only contested the power of attorney which ceased to be invalid as on the death of the appellant as such power of attorney only attains the validity till the life of the person not after his/ her death. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.."
In the light of the above position, it is pertinent to note the written submission sent by the Respondent which indicates that despite the specific observations and directions of the Commission vide the aforementioned order, the factual position reported by the Respondent in the aforementioned complaints is as stated hereunder:
"We have still NOT received the following documents from Appellant/her representatives:
1. Succession certificate of deceased Mrs. P. Sugunavati mentioning Mrs. G. Raja Rajeswari as one of Legal Heirs of Mrs. P. Sugunavati.
2. Succession certificate of the Lessor of the Retail Outlet land mentioning Mrs. P. Sugunavati as one of her Legal Heirs of the Lessor of the Retail Outlet land.
3. Authority letter of Mrs. P. Sugunavati & Mrs. G. Raja Rajeswari authorizing Mr. G.LN. Prasad to attend the CIC hearing of 21.04.2022.
Hence in the absence of receipt of the above documents from the representatives of Mrs. P. Sugunavati, we are unable to provide any information, In fact the denial of information citing that information is related to third party is in keeping with the provisions of law and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Since the aforementioned cases are complaints the only issue to be determined is whether there has been any deliberate or wilful denial of information in these cases. Considering the facts of the above cases, the Commission is of the opinion that the aforementioned cases do not merit action under Section 18 of the RTI Act, since there is no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent.
Hence the complaints are disposed off as such.
(6) CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/127233/C The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.04.2022 seeking following information:-
Page 10 of 16Please provide such certified copies of all such requests from VM Sastry as legal heir of VV Sastry the recommendations, the office notes and the sanction letters for the lease rent that was paid to Mr. V. Markandeya Sastry as legal heir of late Shir VV Sastry upto 2009 @ Rs. 2600/p.a. as the applicant suspect a foul play.
The PIO/Deputy General Manager(B&NP (Retail) BPCL, Andhra Pradesh &Telangana vide letter dated 23.05.2022 replied as under:-
" The information sought by you under point No. 1 is denied as you are third party and there is no public interest involved at large.
Your mother in law, Mrs. P. Sugunavati who was neither our Dealer nor Lessor and is no more. This information of her demise we gathered during CIC hearing 21.04.2022. We were not aware about demise of Mrs. P. Sugunvati.
In the changed scenario now when Mrs. P. Sugunavati is no more, you and your wife still continue seeking information about a closed Outlet of BPCL on which you have a personal family dispute.
Kindly refer point No. 9 of CIC decision dated 23rd February 2015 of IC Sri Sharat Sabharwal. Copy enclosed for your ready reference."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 30.05.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. The relevant parties attended the hearing through video conference and reiterated their respective contentions, as noted hereinabove.
Decision:
Perusal of the facts of the appeal reveals that the information sought by the Appellant relates to a third party and is personal in nature; disclosure whereof is barred under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not produced any legally admissible document to claim that he is the rightful legal heir of the deceased third party to access the information. Hence no legal infirmity is found in the reply sent by the PIO and thus no intervention is warranted in this case.
The appeal is thus disposed off with no further direction.Page 11 of 16
Before concluding the decision, considering the numerous cases filed by the Applicant herein and his family members, the Commission wishes to refer to some decisions of this Commission, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby such misuse of the RTI Act has been discouraged from time to time. Some of the important precedents are as under:
i. This Commission has in its decision no. CIC/YA/A/2014/001071, 001123,001210 while disposing of a batch of fifteen matters of one Sh. M Danasegar dated 30.06.2015 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 ii. The Apex Court's observation regarding vexatious and frivolous petitions in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries(AIR 1980 SC
946) "....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. ...."
Page 12 of 16iii. 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:
".........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 iv. 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 Page 13 of 16 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 v. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar &Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed that:
"........Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse toex ercise 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 vi. 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 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 prove that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized problem and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not absolute.
vii. The Apex Court The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, [A.I.R 2011 SC 3336] 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 Page 14 of 16 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 authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use.."
Emphasis supplied viii. 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 accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the Page 15 of 16 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 In the light of the above decisions, the Applicant herein is advised to strictly refrain in future from filing applications repeatedly seeking information on the same subject matter, under the RTI Act unless he is able to submit proof of his legal right as heir to the deceased third party.
The aforementioned cases are disposed off accordingly.
वाई. के . िस हा) Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
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 16 of 16