Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr.Fayazoddin Ayazoddin vs Ministry Of Defence on 21 December, 2012

            CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
             Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066


                     File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002500
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002429
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002428
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002427
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002622
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002623
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002624
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002627
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002628
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002629
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002630
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002631
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002632
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002633
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002634
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002635
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002639
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002638
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002637
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002636
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002625
                               CIC/LS/A/2012/002626

Appellant                         :         A. Fayazoddin

Respondent             :          DGQA

Date of hearing         :         21st & 28th December, 2012

Date of decision        :         28th December, 2012

FACTS

The above cited 22 matters are fixed up for hearing on 28.12.2012. Shri Arun Kumar, Director (CPIO), Lt. Col. Rakesh Narula and Shri R. S. Rawat, Asstt. Director, all of DGQA, are present before the Commission in some other matter. They request that they may be heard these matters today itself so that they do not have to appear before the Commission again. Their request is accepted and they are heard today dated 22.12.2012.

2. It is the contention of the above named officers that the aforesaid matters concern supply of non-skid chains to the Army. The CBI had registered a criminal case in this connection which is under trial at present. Shri A. Fayazoddin, appellant herein, had filed an appeal vide File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002601 which was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 8.11.2012. Subsequently said A. Fayazoddin had filed another 09 appeals in the same matter which, again, were dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 22.11.2012 (File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002350 and 08 Ors). It is their contention that the queries raised in the present appeals are substantially the same as were raised in the matters which have already been decided by this Commission and that no new queries have been raised. It is their contention that the ratio of the decisions already delivered by this Commission squarely applies in these 22 cases and, therefore, these appeals should be dismissed off-hand.

3. The matter is called for hearing today dated 28.12.2012. The appellant is not present but Col. (Retd.) S. K. Jain has appeared on his behalf. He submits that the requested information pertains to supply of non-skid chains by M/s Moval Chains Ltd., Mumbai, against various supply orders and it is not connected with the ongoing-trial, as pleaded by the DGQA authorities.

4. I have perused the contents of the RTI application. The appellant appears to have essentially and substantially raised the same issues in these RTI applications and the appeals arising there-from which have already been decided by this Commission. Suffice to say that the ratio of this Commission's decisions dated 8.11.2012 (File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002601) and dated 22.11.2012 (File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002350 and 08 ors) squarely applies in the 22 matters before the Commission. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed.

5. Before parting with this matter I would like to extract para 37 of the Supreme Court judgment dated 9.8.2011 in Aditya Bandopadhyay vs. Central Board of Secondary Education in which the court observed that a situation should not be created whereby 75% time of the 75% staff of the public authority is spent only in responding to the RTI applications to the detriment of their routine duties. The relevant para of the said judgment is extracted below:-

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.

6. The above observations of the Supreme Court squarely apply in the present case.

Sd/-

(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.

(K L Das) Dy. Registrar Address of parties

1. The CPIO Dte. Gen of Quality Assurance, Room No. - 139, ' 'G' Block, Nirman Bhawan Post Office, New Delhi - 110011

2. Shri A. Fayazoddin 603, 'E' Bldg. Hill Mist Harmony, Kausar Baug, Off Nibmroad, Kondhwa, Pune - 411048