Central Information Commission
K. Balu vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 10 May, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/BHELD/A/2018/627087
Shri K Balu ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, Bharat Heavy ... ितवादी /Respondent
Electricals Limited, RTI Cell,
BHEL Corporate Office, BHEL
House, Sirifort, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 25.07.2017 FA : 29.10.2017 SA : 17.07.2018
CPIO : 28.09.2017 FAO : 27.12.2017 Hearing : 01.05.2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, RTI Cell, BHEL Corporate Office, BHEL House, Sirifort, New Delhi seeking information on four points, including, inter-alia: "(i) Name and designation of the custodian of the records referred by the CPIO in the reply for query nos.8, 9, 13, 15 and 16 of the RTI Application bearing registration Number:
BHELD/R/2017/50127 and 50124 Submitted by the applicant; (ii) Address of the office where the records referred by the CPIO in reply for query nos.8, 9, 13, 15 and 16 of the RTI Application bearing registration Number: BHELD/R/2017/50127 and Page 1 of 5 50124 submitted by the applicant are available; (iii) Copy of communication if any with the CPIO of BHEL/Tiruchi by the CPIO of BHEL/Corporate Office with regard to the availability of the requested information in so copy at BHEL/Tiruchi.
(BHEL/Tiruchi was entrusted to receive applications through online for this recruitment); and (iv) The applicant wants to inspect the above mentioned records before making payment for copy, are receiving confirmation by the CPIO that the requested information is not available with BHEL/Tiruchi in so copy. Hence, the CPIO is requested to confirm the availability of the requested information in so copy at BHEL/Tiruchi. If the requested information is not available at BHEL/Tiruchi in so copy, then the CPIO is requested to arrange for inspection of above referred records at BHEL/Ranipet. If it is not possible to arrange inspection at BHEL/Ranipet, then the CPIO may arrange for inspection of above records at any place at his discretion. The inspection date has to be decided on mutual consent."
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 29.10.2017 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 27.12.2017 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-call. The respondent, Ms. Arpita Mehta, CPIO attended the hearing through video-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 27.04.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
Page 2 of 55. The appellant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent. He stated that names and designation as sought by him on point no. 1 has not been provided to him.
6. The respondent submitted that the appellant, Sh. K. Balu is a habitual information seeker with BHEL who recurrently files applications before BHEL. He is an ex-employee of our company and is using RTI as a tool to address his grievances against the company. Not only through RTI, the appellant is repetitively, parallelly and frequently invoking other mediums like Grievance redressal system; representations to Directors/CMD/Ministries etc. only with a vexatious motive to torment the Authorities at BHEL. After filing RTIs, as a characteristic, the applicant has been persistently calling the CPIO/Appellate Authority and other officials of BHEL for either threatening or imposing his own belief of the systems in BHEL. The current appeal of the appellant arises out of the reply dated 19.07.2017 of the then CPIO against two RTI applications filed by him just prior to the subject RTI application in question dated 25.07.2017. In this particular RTI application, the appellant has either sought confirmation further to the reply of the then CPIO or has made counter reply to the CPIO's reply without making payment as requested by the CPIO and has made frivolous accusations against the then CPIO/First Appellate Authority which is against the spirit of the RTI Act.
7. The respondent further submitted that point wise reply has already been provided to the appellant. The respondent further submitted that instead of paying the fee and receiving the desired documents, the appellant posed another RTI application raising counter questions like asking particularly for name and designation of custodian of records, with an intention best known to him. Therefore, keeping in view the past conduct of the appellant of filing repeated inquisitorial RTI applications and thereafter calling and threatening the employees, calling them corrupt etc, it was felt that it would be reasonable to inform that it is the Company or BHEL which is the custodian of the records rather than naming any one person or Page 3 of 5 official, to protect the privacy and for the safety of the individual officers. Moreover, the requested information is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it could endanger the life or physical safety of employees of the company.
Decision:
8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that specific and categorical point-wise reply/information has been provided to the appellant on his RTI application. The Commission agrees with the response given by the respondent. The appellant was categorically informed that BHEL is the custodian of records. Further, the respondent has rightly invoked Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क / Date:-01.05.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#ािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, BHEL Corporate Office, BHEL House, Sirifort, New Delhi - 110049.
2. Shri K Balu, Page 5 of 5