Central Information Commission
Siddhartha Mukherjee vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 26 June, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2025/611110
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/HPCLD/C/2025/611122
Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
...निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL)
Date of Hearing : 13.06.2025
Date of Decision : 23.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.01.2025
PIO replied on : 04.02.2025
First Appeal filed on : 05.02.2025
First Appellate Order on : 28.02.2025
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 05.03.2025
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 04.01.2025
PIO replied on : 04.02.2025
First Appeal filed on : 05.02.2025
First Appellate Order on : 28.02.2025
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 06.03.2025
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1)CIC/HPCLD/A/2025/611110 (2)CIC/HPCLD/C/2025/611122 The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 04.01.2025 seeking information on following points:-
"CPIO and the Authorized Representative of Hindustan Petroleum and Natural Gas is requested to provide a certified copy of leer No. DRO_AKG_PERS dated February 12, 2020 issued by its Dehradun Retail Regional Office (DRO). The Page 1 said leer was issued at a time when the Nation saw the outbreak of the deadly Corona Virus for which lockdowns was announced in the evening of March 24, 2020."
The CPIO, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), Mumbai vide letter dated 04.02.2025 replied as under:-
"Xx Vide said application, you have requested for the certified copy of letter DRO/AKG/PERS dated 12/02/2020, which was issued by Dehradun Retail Regional Office.
Please note that the letter was issued to an employee of the Corporation and the information requested by you is held by the Corporation in its fiduciary relationship and the same cannot be shared in view of the provisions of Sub- section 1(e) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as it does not disclose any larger public interest.
Notwithstanding the above, please be informed that the original letter bearing reference DRO/AKG/PERS dated 12/02/2020 is available with the recipient and thus, the original letter is not held by the CPIO."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 05.02.2025. The FAA vide order dated 28.02.2025 stated as under:-
"Xx Xx I have carefully gone through your RTI application as well CPIO reply in this regard.
Please note that the letter was issued to ex. employee of the Corporation and the information requested by you is held by the Corporation in its fiduciary relationship and the same is protected under sub-section 1(e) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Further disclosure of the information violates the confidentiality of personal and sensitive matters. Hence merits exemption under section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 Considering the above aspects, your appeal is hereby disposed of without any instructions to the CPIO."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Deepak Kaushik, DGM CIC/HPCLD/A/2025/611110 Page 2 A written submission dated 30/05/2025 has been received from the Appellant and duly taken on record.
A detailed and self -explanatory written submission dated 04.06.2025 has been received from CPIO reiterating that the information available on record and as permissible under the RTI Act having been provided to the Appellant. The Respondent has also submitted the following facts for consideration before the Commission.
1. The CPIO submitted that that letter DRO/AKG/PERS dated 12/02/2020 was issued to an employee of the Corporation and the requested information is by the Corporation in fiduciary relationship and the same cannot be shared in view of the provision of Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005, as the same did not disclose any larger public interest. Notwithstanding above, it was informed to the Applicant that the abovementioned original letter was available with the recipient and thus, the original letter was not held by the CPIO.
2. Further, the CPIO also wish to crave indulgence of the Hon'ble CIC with regard to the previous conduct of the RTI applicant who represented one of his co-worker, namely Shri Ratan Kumar and subsequently lodged complaint against the said co-worker, leading to logical inference which can be drawn in respect of misuse of details related to personal information by the present RTI applicant and given the peculiar facts and conduct of the RTI applicant, the denial of the CPIO in light of fiduciary relationship is logical and fully justified. Notwithstanding above, it is to be noted that the RTI Applicant has represented Shri Rajesh Kumar before Ld. Regional Labour Commissioner (Center), Patna as well as before Hon'ble NCSC and for the said reason, it is obvious that the RTI Applicant is already privy to the information, which is held by his co-worker for whom he has espouse the cause and subsequently seeking the same information under RTI. Şince, the information sought for and the original document is already in the custody of the recipient for whom the RTI Applicant has espouse the cause, it is to be construed that the information sought for is already in possession with the RTI Applicant, and as such cannot be said to have held by the CPIO under RTI Act.
3. While working at North Zone Office of the Corporation, Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee was placed under Suspension vide Order dated 29/01/2021. The said suspension was challenged by him before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP No. 2974 of 2021. However, no interim order was passed and the petition was finally dismissed as withdrawn on 05/03/2021.
4. Vide letter dated 03/06/2021 upon revoking the suspension, Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee was advised to report port for duty at location Rewari IRD, to which he did not relent upon and his non-reporting for duty effective 15/06/2021 was treated as unauthorized absence. The reassignment has been challenged by him before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP No. 8008 of 2021, but as such no interim Order was passed staying the operations of the reassignment. Further, during hearing held on 9/8/2021, though the Hon'ble Judge, Delhi High Court Page 3 verbally advised the counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee to advise his client (Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee) to report for duty else face the consequences, but Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee did not report for duty. In view of non-reporting for duty, disciplinary action has also been initiated against him for his unauthorized absence.
5. Since HPCL had initiated action and proceeded with domestic enquiry against Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee in line with the applicable Certified Standing Orders (applicable to Non-Management), Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee aggrieved by the Disciplinary action against him, has been continuously filing repetitive and multiple number of RTI applications, First Appeals as well as Second Appeals before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, all of which serve no larger public interest other than his personal self-interest and vengeance. A series of RTI applications have also been filed seeking personal information and related to action of the senior functionaries of the Corporation, who are directly/ indirectly connected with action initiated against Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee or have been successfully representing the Corporation before the court of law.
The Respondent has also cited past decisions of the Commission in cases of the Appellant as well as some legal precedents from the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. The submission also contains the following data about the number of cases filed by the Complainant before the Delhi High Court and the current status of the cases:
S.No Name of the Writ No Relief Claimed Status
Parties
1. Siddhartha WP (C) No. Challenging Dismissed vide
Mukherjee vs 4928 of reassignment letter order dated
HPCL and 2019 dated 25.01.2019 18/08/2023
Anr. w.r.t. his invoking the
reassignment in principle of 'no
different dept. in work, no pay
same building.
2. Siddhartha WP (C) No. For Vide order
Mukherjee vs 2974 of quashing/Suspension dtd.05/03/2021
DA, HPCL 2021 Order petition was
and Anr. dtd.29.01.2021. dismissed as
withdrawn
3. Siddhartha WP(C) No. Direction to release of Disposed of on
Mukherjee vs 2392 of his salary for the 03.08.2021
HPCL and 2021 month of January consequent to
Ors. 2021 and direction to initiation of action
keep CCTV footage on by the Corporation
24/12/2020 in safe. against erring
custody for alleged employees
proxy punching
complaint filed by
him
4. Siddhartha WP (C) No. Challenging alleged Interim order
Mukherjee vs 8008 of reduction of refused
HPCL and 2021 subsistence subsistence
Page 4
Anr. allowance, allowance neither
reassignment letter reduced nor post
dated 03.06.2021, revocation
and letter dated. entitled; pending
05.07.2021 post for final hearing
suspension
revocation.
5. Siddhartha LPA 660 of Challenged the Dismissed vide
Mukherjee vs 2023 judgment dated order dated
HPCL and 18/08/2023 of single 26/09/2023
Anr. bench in WP (C) 4928 without issuing
of 2019 notice.
6. Siddhartha Diary Challenged the Dismissed vide
Mukherjee vs Number judgment dated order dated
HPCL and 38669 of 26/09/2023 of 04/10/2024
Anr. 2024 division bench in LPA without issuing
(Supreme 660 of 2023 notice
Court of
India)
7. Siddhartha Review Review the order Vide Order dated
Mukherjee vs Petition No. dated 08/01/2025 of 28/04/2025, the
HPCL and 244 of 2025 single bench in WP Petition was
Anr. (C) 8008 of 2021 dismissed and a
cost was imposed
for filing repeated
misconceived
applications
Further, the CPIO submitted that it is pertinent to point out herein that in the Review Petition No. 244 of 2025, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 28/04/2025, observed hereunder:
13.As noted above, the petitioner has filed a number of applications in the course of these proceedings, most of which have been dismissed. While dismissing an application for early hearing [CM APPL. 8755/2025), filed merely five days after another early hearing application had been dismissed, the Court had occasion to caution the petitioner against future misadventures of this nature. The filing of repeated, misconceived applications diverts the attention of the Court from other cases pending before it. I am of the view that, notwithstanding the averments regarding the petitioner's health and the service conditions, it is now necessary to impose an order of costs upon him. The review petition, and accompanying application, are therefore, dismissed with an order of costs of Rs. 5,000/-against the petitioner, which he is directed to deposit with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
14. After the order was dictated, the petitioner, who is present in person, along with Dr. Puran Chand, his counsel, made certain intemperate remarks directed at the Court. At Dr. Puran Chand's request, I refrain from passing any orders initiating contempt proceedings at this stage, and once again caution the petitioner.
Page 5
6. The CPIO further provided the data of number of RTi and first Appeal filed by the Appellant i.e. RTI applications 235, first Appeal 147 & second Appeal
65.
Decision:
Upon the perusal of the case records & submissions, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has been provided by the CPIO.
Further, In the light of the large number of cases filed by the Appellant and the factual premise of the cases, the Commission finds it worthwhile to mention a similar case wherein this Commission 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 had 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 disciplinary proceedings 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 The Commission placed reliance on the following Apex Court decision regarding vexatious and frivolous petitions. 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. ...."
The Apex Court had discussed the issue of wasteful vexatious litigation 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 Page 6 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 Vexatious litigation and misuse of RTI Act has been discussed in the decision of 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] wherein it has been 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 also 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 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 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 Page 7 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 observation essentially proves 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.
Considering the adverse impact of unmanageable amount of queries, the Apex Court in a vital decision 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. ... 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 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 Page 8 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, tranquillity 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..."
In view of the settled position as enunciated in the above decisions and the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that undoubtedly the modus operandi of filing such large number of irrelevant and unrelated RTI applications is neither proper nor acceptable. Hence, the Appellant is advised to refrain from misusing the RTI Act to resolve any personal grudges.
In the light of the aforementioned discussion and in view of the fact that response sent by the PIOs is found legally appropriate, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The Appeal stands disposed off.
CIC/HPCLD/C/2025/611122 A detailed and self -explanatory written submission dated 04.06.2025 has been received from CPIO reiterating that the information available on record and as permissible under the RTI Act having been provided to the Appellant. The Respondent has also submitted the following facts for consideration before the Commission.
1. The CPIO submitted that that letter DRO/AKG/PERS dated 12/02/2020 was issued to an employee of the Corporation and the requested information is by the Corporation in fiduciary relationship and the same cannot be shared in view of the provision of Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005, as the same did not disclose any larger public interest. Notwithstanding above, it was informed to the Applicant that the abovementioned original letter was available with the recipient and thus, the original letter was not held by the CPIO.
2. Further, the CPIO also wish to crave indulgence of the Hon'ble CIC with regard to the previous conduct of the RTI applicant who represented one of his co-worker, namely Shri Ratan Kumar and subsequently lodged complaint against the said co-worker, leading to logical inference which can be drawn in respect of misuse of details related to personal information by the present RTI applicant and given the peculiar facts and conduct of the RTI applicant, the denial of the CPIO in light of Page 9 fiduciary relationship is logical and fully justified. Notwithstanding above, it is to be noted that the RTI Applicant has represented Shri Rajesh Kumar before Ld. Regional Labour Commissioner (Center), Patna as well as before Hon'ble NCSC and for the said reason, it is obvious that the RTI Applicant is already privy to the information, which is held by his co-worker for whom he has espouse the cause and subsequently seeking the same information under RTI. Şince, the information sought for and the original document is already in the custody of the recipient for whom the RTI Applicant has espouse the cause, it is to be construed that the information sought for is already in possession with the RTI Applicant, and as such cannot be said to have held by the CPIO under RTI Act.
3. While working at North Zone Office of the Corporation, Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee was placed under Suspension vide Order dated 29/01/2021. The said suspension was challenged by him before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP No. 2974 of 2021. However, no interim order was passed and the petition was finally dismissed as withdrawn on 05/03/2021.
4. Vide letter dated 03/06/2021 upon revoking the suspension, Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee was advised to report port for duty at location Rewari IRD, to which he did not relent upon and his non-reporting for duty effective 15/06/2021 was treated as unauthorized absence. The reassignment has been challenged by him before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP No. 8008 of 2021, but as such no interim Order was passed staying the operations of the reassignment. Further, during hearing held on 9/8/2021, though the Hon'ble Judge, Delhi High Court verbally advised the counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee to advise his client (Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee) to report for duty else face the consequences, but Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee did not report for duty. In view of non-reporting for duty, disciplinary action has also been initiated against him for his unauthorized absence.
5. Since HPCL had initiated action and proceeded with domestic enquiry against Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee in line with the applicable Certified Standing Orders (applicable to Non-Management), Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee aggrieved by the Disciplinary action against him, has been continuously filing repetitive and multiple number of RTI applications, First Appeals as well as Second Appeals before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, all of which serve no larger public interest other than his personal self-interest and vengeance. A series of RTI applications have also been filed seeking personal information and related to action of the senior functionaries of the Corporation, who are directly/ indirectly connected with action initiated against Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee or have been successfully representing the Corporation before the court of law.
The Respondent has also cited past decisions of the Commission in cases of the Appellant as well as some legal precedents from the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. The submission also contains the following data about the number of cases filed by the Complainant before the Delhi High Court and the current status of the cases:
Page 10 S.No Name of the Writ No Relief Claimed Status Parties
8. Siddhartha WP (C) No. Challenging Dismissed vide Mukherjee vs 4928 of reassignment letter order dated HPCL and 2019 dated 25.01.2019 18/08/2023 Anr. w.r.t. his invoking the reassignment in principle of 'no different dept. in work, no pay same building.
9. Siddhartha WP (C) No. For Vide order Mukherjee vs 2974 of quashing/Suspension dtd.05/03/2021 DA, HPCL 2021 Order petition was and Anr. dtd.29.01.2021. dismissed as withdrawn
10. Siddhartha WP(C) No. Direction to release of Disposed of on Mukherjee vs 2392 of his salary for the 03.08.2021 HPCL and 2021 month of January consequent to Ors. 2021 and direction to initiation of action keep CCTV footage on by the Corporation 24/12/2020 in safe. against erring custody for alleged employees proxy punching complaint filed by him
11. Siddhartha WP (C) No. Challenging alleged Interim order Mukherjee vs 8008 of reduction of refused HPCL and 2021 subsistence subsistence Anr. allowance, allowance neither reassignment letter reduced nor post dated 03.06.2021, revocation and letter dated. entitled; pending 05.07.2021 post for final hearing suspension revocation.
12. Siddhartha LPA 660 of Challenged the Dismissed vide Mukherjee vs 2023 judgment dated order dated HPCL and 18/08/2023 of single 26/09/2023 Anr. bench in WP (C) 4928 without issuing of 2019 notice.
13. Siddhartha Diary Challenged the Dismissed vide Mukherjee vs Number judgment dated order dated HPCL and 38669 of 26/09/2023 of 04/10/2024 Anr. 2024 division bench in LPA without issuing (Supreme 660 of 2023 notice Court of India)
14. Siddhartha Review Review the order Vide Order dated Mukherjee vs Petition No. dated 08/01/2025 of 28/04/2025, the HPCL and 244 of 2025 single bench in WP Petition was Anr. (C) 8008 of 2021 dismissed and a cost was imposed for filing repeated Page 11 misconceived applications Further, the CPIO submitted that it is pertinent to point out herein that in the Review Petition No. 244 of 2025, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 28/04/2025, observed hereunder:
13.As noted above, the petitioner has filed a number of applications in the course of these proceedings, most of which have been dismissed. While dismissing an application for early hearing [CM APPL. 8755/2025), filed merely five days after another early hearing application had been dismissed, the Court had occasion to caution the petitioner against future misadventures of this nature. The filing of repeated, misconceived applications diverts the attention of the Court from other cases pending before it. I am of the view that, notwithstanding the averments regarding the petitioner's health and the service conditions, it is now necessary to impose an order of costs upon him. The review petition, and accompanying application, are therefore, dismissed with an order of costs of Rs. 5,000/-against the petitioner, which he is directed to deposit with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
14. After the order was dictated, the petitioner, who is present in person, along with Dr. Puran Chand, his counsel, made certain intemperate remarks directed at the Court. At Dr. Puran Chand's request, I refrain from passing any orders initiating contempt proceedings at this stage, and once again caution the petitioner.
6. The CPIO further provided the data of number of RTi and first Appeal filed by the Appellant i.e. RTI applications 235 , first Appeal 147 & second Appeal 65 Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, Page 12 the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)