Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 9 March, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायतसं या / Complaint No. CIC/SPMCO/C/2019/600768
Varun Krishna ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, Security Printing and ... ितवादी /Respondent
Minting Corporation of India
Limited, JawaharVyaparBhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 10.12.2018 FA : Not on record Complaint: 11.01.2019
Hearing: 21.08.2020,
CPIO : 08.01.2019 FAO : Not on record
08.03.2021
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi seeking information on two points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Daily progress report from date of receiving decision Pertaining to Case No:-CIC/MHOME/A/2017/178313/MOFIN-BJD dtd 20.9.18for compliance till date of this application mentioning names and designation of the official with whom decision was lying and details of action taken by him/her; and
(ii) Evidence of receipt and dispatch of decision in the offices of each of the official mentioned at S. No. 1.
2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the CPIO, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that action should be taken against the respondent.
Hearing:
3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri V Balaji, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The complainant submitted that the respondent has not furnished complete information to him on his RTI application dated 10.12.2018. He stated that the respondent has wrongly denied the information on baseless ground that the information sought has already been provided inhis earlier RTI application. The complainant submitted that he has also written an e-mail to the CMD, SPMCIL to give an affidavit that similar/identical information has been sought by him. The complainant submitted that appropriate action should be initiated against the CPIO.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 08.01.2019, they have informed the complainant that "the instant RTI application which the applicant has raised another set of question which are similar and slightly altered to his earlier RTI application dated 09.11.2018 which was duly replied by their office on 05.12.2018 and 27.12.2018". On query from the Commission regarding the letters dated 05.12.2018 and 27.12.2018 where the information sought in the present RTI application has been covered in the said letters.The respondent submitted that the said letters dated 05.12.2018 and 27.12.2018 are not available in his records presently. The respondent assured that he will submit the letters dated 05.12.2018 and 27.12.2018 before the Commission on next date of hearing.
Interim Decision:
6. In the absence of complete documents, the Commission cannot adjudicate the matter appropriately. In view of this, the matter is adjourned.
7. The respondent is directed to upload complete documents on the Commission's web-link including letters dated 05.12.2018 and 27.12.2018. The respondent should ascertain that the present RTI queries are wholly and fully covered in the previous replies dated 05.12.2018 and 27.12.2018. The respondent is further directed to part their written submissions, if any with the applicant prior to the date of hearing.
8. The Deputy Registrar is directed to fix hearing in this matter after 15 days. Fresh notice of hearing will be issued to both the parties.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु मारगु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक / Date: 21.08.2020 Date of Hearing: 08/03/2021 Date of Decision: 08/03/2021 The following were present:
Complainant: Heard over phone Respondent: Shri V Balaji, AGM(HR) & the present PIO and Shri Prakash Kumar, DGM(HR) & the then CPIO, both present over intra VC Submission made by Complainant and Respondent during the hearing:
The complainant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CMD as an evasive reply was given to him and that is the very reason why he filed this RTI application. He further submitted that as per the order dated 20.09.2018 of the then IC, it was the CMD who had to look into the matter and furnish suitable comments to him, however, the same has not been done till date and all this depicts sheer non-compliance of the orders of the Commission in totality and he wants to bring this larger aspect of non-compliance to light as in other cases too which have been listed for hearing on the same day, the main issue remains the same- largely non-compliance of the CIC's orders The CPIO in his written submissions dated 04.03.2021 had stated that the complainant had sought information on the similar subject vide his RTI application dated 11.09.2018 wherein he raised 5 points on the subject pertaining to Case No:-CIC/MHOME/A/2017/178313/MOFIN-BJ dated 20.09.2018 and to this application, he had provided a reply on 05.12.2018 within the stipulated time and subsequently vide letter dated 27. 12.2018. He had further stated that the decision given by Hon'ble IC was also complied with after taking the approval from CMD, SPMCIL and the same was communicated to the complainant vide the letter dated 12.12.2018 alongwith all the relevant annexures. Therefore, in his reply to the above mentioned RTI application, he had stated that the matter was similar and slightly altered by the applicant from his earlier RTI application dated 11.09.2018 on the referred subject while relying on the decision of the Commission dated 25.06.2014 in the matter of Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain Vs. DTC wherein it was held that:
" the universal principles of civil justice also recognized 'constructive res judicata which in the RTI context means when an applicant uses an opportunity' for obtaining information on a particular subject as per law, he is expected to seek all the related information in that first ever opportunity itself. He cannot file another application for a bit or piece which he forget to ask, or not advised by his lawyer, or for any other reason. He should ask all possible aspects of information about that matter, in the first ever available opportunity. Even if he does not, it is presumed by law that he asked for that and was refused after due trial. This is incorporated in principles a( civil procedural justice and practiced universally. It is in the public interest and also to further the objective of Right to Information Act, that such repeated or unending stream of question being sought form same different public authorities to be stopped". "
The commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority and based on the responses file a bunchy of RTI questions from the same or other wing of same public authority, or from other authority. This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public Authority, As the PIOs go on answering, more and more question are generated out of the same and in the same proportion the number of repeated first appeals and second appeals also will be growing"... " cases of disclosure of information to the repetitive applicants for their private purpose which promotes their private interest but no the public interest would cause substantial harm to the legitimate aim of the Right to Information Act. "
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and particularly the written submissions of the CPIO dated 04.03.2021, it is noted that the CPIO was right in giving a reply stating that the information sought is similar and slightly altered against an earlier RTI of the same complainant which has been already replied to. For the sake of better understanding and clarity of the facts, the Commission is quoting verbatim the contents of the RTI application dated 11.09.2018 as below:
Subject matter information: Pertaining to Case No. CIC/MHOME/A/2017/178313MOFIN-BJ dated 20/09/2018 where CMD, SPMCIL is directed to look into the matter and furnish suitable comments to the Appellant, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The period to which information related: 20/09/2018 till the date of this RTI application.
Description of Information required: Please provide certified copies of following information:
1. Inward number and date of receiving this order by the office of CMD-SPMCIL.
2. Copies of all documents executed, prepared, issued and received along with office file noting pertaining to compliance of CIC decision.
3. Action Taken Report (ATR) by CMD-SPMCIL with regards to compliance of CIC decision.
4. If decision is not complied then provide reasons available on record for non-
compliance with Name and Official Mobile number of the concerned official accountable.
5. Expected date by which the decision will be complied.
After a perusal of the contents of the RTI application dated 11.09.2018, it is noted that in both the RTI applications, the subject matter was pertaining to Case No:-
CIC/MHOME/A/2017/178313/MOFIN-BJ dated 20.09.2018 and the process of its compliance. Therefore, the Commission is unable to find any flaw in the reply of the CPIO dated 08.01.2019. It is pertinent to mention here that since the complainant is in the habit of filing multiple RTI applications on the similar subject where more often the issues raised are very similar and related to each other, there is every possibility and likelihood that the CPIO may refer to one or the other letter where according to him some information was already given. Therefore, it cannot be said that the CPIO had deliberately obstructed the information. However, it is found that there was a typographical error in the reply of the CPIO as the date of the RTI application mentioned therein was 09.11.2018 and not 11.09.2018. The CPIO is therefore advised to remain careful while handling the RTI applications and to ensure that such typographical errors do not occur. On a query to the CPIO as to whether a copy of the recent written submissions was given to the complainant, he submitted that it has not been done. The Commission is amazed as to why these submissions were not shared with the complainant before the hearing when the CPIO was specifically directed to give a copy of their written submissions to the complainant prior to the date of hearing. This instance also shows non-compliance of the directions passed by the Commission.
With regard to the aspect of non-compliance which was brought to the notice by the complainant, it is seen that by and large this issue has been raised by the complainant in his various RTI applications being heard today where he asserts that the respondent authority is not complying with the orders of the Commission. The Commission also acknowledges this fact as in the present case, there is a lack of sufficient documentary proof to show that the previous order of the Commission dated 20.09.2018 was complied with. This inaction on the part of the respondent authority has prompted the complainant to file a chain of RTI applications to get the order complied with which resulted into flooding the organisation with the RTI applications that hampers their core functioning. The overall consequences does not stop there, as the appellant/complainant in such cases has to approach the Commission also and in this way the number of pending cases before the Commission also increases. So this issue needs to be addressed and some corrective measures should be taken at an appropriate level without any further delay. However, since it is a general issue, this burden of cannot be placed upon a particular officer.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that there was no malafide obstruction of the desired information by the concerned CPIO, a suitable reply has been given and hence the complaint is not established. However the present CPIO is issued a strict warning for not providing a copy of the written submissions to the complainant and for handling the RTI applications in a negligent manner. He needed to have followed the orders of the then IC of 21.08.2020 and should have provided a revised reply to the complainant on all the three directions given in that order regarding uploading of complete documents on the Commission's web-link, stating that the present RTI queries were wholly and fully covered in the replies dated 05.12.2018 and 27.12.2018 and given a copy of the recent written submissions well in advance of the hearing . Even if points 1 & 2 of that interim decision were complied with, these were not clearly spelt out to the complainant.
An advisory is, therefore, issued u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Chairman, SPMCIL Hqrs., to look into the matter of non-compliance of the Commission's orders and submit his/her written comments on this issue particularly the manner in which the orders of the Commission are complied with. A detailed explanation should be given whether there are any written communications done after an order is issued or these matters are verbally discussed among the officers, what action is taken against an officer who fails to comply with any order, etc. The Commission desires that this advice should be viewed seriously and written comments with details of the procedure being followed to ensure compliance of the Commission's orders be submitted to the Commission within one month of the receipt of this order.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna(वनजाएन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Security Printing and Minting Corporation of-
India Limited, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, 16th Floor, JawaharVyaparBhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001
2. The Chariman, Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi- 110001