Central Information Commission
Rishi Jindal vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 29 July, 2021
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
दितीय अपील सख्ं या /Second Appeal No.: CIC/NDMCR/A/2019/660630
CIC/NDMCR/A/2019/654490
CIC/NDMCR/A/2019/650230
CIC/NDMCR/A/2019/643060
CIC/NDMCH/A/2019/650259
Rishi Jindal .....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनतम
1. Public Information Officer,
Executive Engineer (Building-I), Rohini Zone,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Sector-5,
Rohini, New Delhi-110085.
2. Public Information Officer,
Executive Engineer (Building-III) HQ,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 8th Floor,
Civic Centre Minto Road, New Delhi-110002.
...प्रतर्वतदीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.07.2021
Date of Decision : 29.07.2021
सूचनाआयुक्त: श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 19
CIC/NDMCR/A/2019/660630
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.09.2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 08.11.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 29.11.2019
Second Appeal received at CIC : Not on record
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information is a under:
Having not received any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.11.2020.Page 2 of 19
The FAA vide order dated 29.11.2020 held that:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 3 of 19
CIC/NDMCR/A/2019/654490 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2019
CPIO replied on : 30.08.2019
First appeal filed on : 02.09.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 01.10.2019
Second Appeal received at CIC : Not on record
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information is a under:
Etc.
Page 4 of 19
PIO vide letter dated 30.08.2019 provided following reply:
Dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated
02.09.2019.
The FAA vide order dated 01.10.2019 held that:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 5 of 19
CIC/NDMCH/A/2019/650259 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.05.2019 CPIO replied on : 07.06.2019 First appeal filed on : 21.06.2019 First Appellate Authority order : 30.08.2019 Second Appeal received at CIC : Not on record Information sought: The Appellant sought information is a under: Page 6 of 19 Etc. Page 7 of 19 PIO provided following reply:
Dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2019.
The FAA vide order dated 30.08.2019 held that:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 8 of 19
CIC/NDMCR/A/2019/643060 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.03.2019
CPIO replied on : 04.04.2019
First appeal filed on : 08.04.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 02.05.2019
Second Appeal received at CIC : Not on record
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information is a under:
Page 9 of 19
Etc.
PIO vide letter dated 04.04.2019 provided following reply:Page 10 of 19
Dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.04.2019.
The FAA vide order dated 02.05.2019 held that:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 11 of 19
CIC/NDMCR/A/2019/650230 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.05.2019
CPIO replied on : 09.05.2019
First appeal filed on : 17.06.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 12.07.2019
Second Appeal received at CIC : Not on record
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information is a under:
Etc.
Page 12 of 19
PIO furnished reply as under:
FAA, vide order dated 12.07.2019, held as under:Page 13 of 19
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present on phone.
Respondent: (1) Mr. S.K. Gupta, PIO, AE(B), NDMC (Rohini Zone), present on phone.
(2) Mr. Adish Jain, PIO, AE(B), NDMC (Rohini Zone), present on phone.
(3) Mr. Ajay Nagpal, PIO, AE (B) HQ, NDMC, present on phone.
Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO in either of the referred cases. He further stated that reply provided is either misleading, vague or deliberately withheld.
PIO submitted that appropriate reply has been furnished in all the instant matters. He further affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the Commission, if any.
Observations:
Commission remarked at the outset based on the number of Appeals of the Appellant as well as the nature of information sought in the respective RTI Applications that he is highlighting his grievance to be redressed through the mechanism of RTI Act.
It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality. However, adverting to cases such as this where the intention of the RTI Applicant is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that it is to only pester the public authorities; the notion of misuse of RTI Act well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments is relevant such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of Page 14 of 19 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.' Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 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 the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' Page 15 of 19 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 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 proves that the misuse of RTI Act is a well-recognized bane and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not after all absolute. Keeping this in view, Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future."
Now, having perused the instant 5 Second Appeals, this bench is of the considered opinion that these cases are merely grievance of the Appellant and in spree of the same he has filed numerous RTI Application with repeated queries by merely adding them to new queries raised in succeeding RTI Applications and most of these RTI Applications are worded in a cumbersome manner and do not even conform to the 500 word limit prescribed under Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012.
Now, the current milieu of the pandemic COVID-19 has caused a significant upheaval in the functioning of all establishments and businesses alike. While for the Commission, this translates into a huge backlog of Appeals. In circumstances such as this, there is a pressing need to identify cases such as the ones under reference for cumulative disposal in order to facilitate expedient disposal of cases of genuine information seekers. In other words, this is where the aforementioned juxtaposition comes into play as the Commission seeks to strike a fine balance between the interests of genuine information seekers, while keeping the menace of frivolous RTI Applicants under check.
Decision:
Adverting to the supra, this bench of Commission after careful perusal of the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing and in the letter and spirit of RTI Act issue following directions:Page 16 of 19
• In the matter of CIC/NDMCR/A/2019/660630 :
At the outset, the Commission expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the then in his failure to provide any reply on the instant RTI Application and violating the time frame stipulated under the RTI Act, 2005. Now, Commission was unable to procure the name of the then PIO, therefore Commission directs then PIO through the present PIO to send his written submissions to justify as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of its provisions. In doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the omission, the then PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such other persons under intimation to the Commission and ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission. The said written submission of then PIO along with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The present PIO will ensure service of this order to then PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, on the basis of proceedings and submission made by the Appellant during hearing, also directs the PIO, to provide an opportunity to the Appellant, or any person duly authorized by Appellant on his behalf, to inspect relevant records, as sought by him in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date & time duly intimated to the Appellant by the PIO telephonically and in writing. In case, relevant information pertains to some other Branch/Department, then PIO should procure and provide relevant documents for inspection. PIO must make sure that information, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, should not be disclosed to the Appellant. Further, copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided subject to the payment of prescribed fees as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012. The said direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
In case relevant records are still not traceable despite searching thoroughly, then PIO must file an appropriate affidavit stating that relevant records as sought in instant the RTI Application is not available in record despite searching thoroughly and all available information has been furnished. The said affidavit shall be sent by the PIO to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant.
The said direction of the Commission must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. No further action lies.Page 17 of 19
• In the matter of CIC/NDMCR/A/2019/654490 &
CIC/NDMCR/A/2019/650230 :
Commission, on the basis of proceedings and submission made by the Appellant during hearing, directs the PIO, to provide an opportunity to the Appellant, or any person duly authorized by Appellant on his behalf, to inspect relevant records, as sought by him in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date & time duly intimated to the Appellant by the PIO telephonically and in writing. In case, relevant information pertains to some other Branch/Department, then PIO should procure and provide relevant documents for inspection. PIO must make sure that information, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, should not be disclosed to the Appellant. Further, copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided subject to the payment of prescribed fees as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012. The said direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
In case relevant records are still not traceable despite searching thoroughly, then PIO must file an appropriate affidavit stating that relevant records as sought in instant the RTI Application is not available in record despite searching thoroughly and all available information has been furnished. The said affidavit shall be sent by the PIO to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant.
The said direction of the Commission must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. No further action is warranted.
• In the matter of CIC/NDMCR/A/2019/643060 :
Commission, on the basis of proceedings and submission made by the Appellant during hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished by the concerned PIO to the Appellant, vide letter dated 04.04.2019. Therefore, no further action lies in the instant matter.
• In the matter of CIC/NDMCH/A/2019/650259 :
Commission, on the basis of proceedings and submission made by the Appellant during hearing, directs the PIO, to provide an opportunity to the Appellant, or any person duly authorized by Appellant on his behalf, to inspect relevant records, as sought by him in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided Page 18 of 19 date & time duly intimated to the Appellant by the PIO telephonically and in writing. In case, relevant information pertains to some other Branch/Department, then PIO should procure and provide relevant documents for inspection. PIO must make sure that information, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, should not be disclosed to the Appellant. Further, copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided subject to the payment of prescribed fees as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012. The said direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. No further action is warranted.
The instant matters are disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया)
Information Commissioner (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अनिप्रमानित सत्यानित प्रनत)
Ram Parkash Grover (रतम प्रकतश ग्रोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Copy to be served through present PIO to:
Then PIO,
Executive Engineer (Building-I), Rohini Zone, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Sector-5, Rohini, New Delhi-110085.
--(For taking note of the adverse remarks and compliance with the orders of the Commission) Page 19 of 19