Central Information Commission
Chand Singh vs Gnctd on 28 February, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/130022
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/108183
CHAND SINGH .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Block Development
Officer, Kharkhari Nahar, Najafgarh
Kapashera Road, Roshanpura,
New Delhi - 110043. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22-02-2024
Date of Decision : 27-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The abovementioned Appeals are clubbed together for disposal as these are
based on identical RTI Applications of the same Appellant.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17-04-2023, 12-11-2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 17-05-2023, 15-12-2022
First Appellate Authority's : Not on record
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10-07-2023,13-02-2023
1
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/130022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.04.2023 seeking the following information:
नवषय :- F. PGC/2023/Annex-1/F/Rev-SW-BDO(SW)/13120 के पत्र की जानकारी नववरण सूचना का ननयम 2005 के र्हर् िे ने का कष्ट करे नजसकी फीस IPO संख्या 439986 पत्र के साब संलग्न हैं ।
1. PGC/2023/Annex-1/F/Rev-SW-BDO(SW)/13120 के पत्र आपके कायाग लय मे प्राप्त होने की संपूरण जानकारी िे ने का कष्ट करें ।
2. PGC/2023/Annex-1/F/Rev-SW-BDO(SW)/13120 के पत्र पर आपके द्वारा की गयी उनचर् कायगवाही की संपूरण जानकारी िे ने का कष्ट करें ।
3. रावर्ा गााँ व की 172/5 ग्राम सभा भूनम पर अनानिकृर् अनर्क्रमण को कानूनी कायगवाही से हटवाने के नलए आपके द्वारा की गयी उनचर् कायगवाही की संपूरण जानकारी िे ने का कष्ट करें ।
4. 172/5 रावर्ा गााँव की ग्रामसभा जमीन की बाउं ड्री करने के नलए (07.86 लाख) रुपए Director Panchayat से 06/05/2022 को Sanction हो चुका हैं ।
172/5 रावर्ा गााँ व की ग्रामसभा जमीन की बाउं ड्री करने के नलए आपके द्वारा की गयी उनचर् कायगवाही की संपूरण जानकारी िे ने कष्ट करें । Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.04.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/108183 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.11.2022 seeking the following information:2
नवषय :- नववरण सूचना का ननयम 2005 के र्हर् जुमागने की रानि भरवाने के संबंि मे जानकारी िे ने हेर्ु नजसकी फीस IPO संख्या 437729 पत्र के साथ स्लंगन हैं।
1. 10-08-2022 के पत्र ED962914541IN का आपके कायागलय में 12-08-2022 को प्राप्त हो चुका था नजसका जवाब आपके कायाग लय ने ED982531594IN SPEED POST निनांक के द्वारा भेजा गया था। जो मुझे 11-11-2022 को प्राप्त हुआ,92 निन र्क लंनबर् करने वाले कमगचारी का पि व नाम की जानकारी िे ने का कष्ट करें ।
2. 61 निन की जुमागने की रानि नवभाग द्वारा जमा की गयी नर्नथ व रिीि नंबर की प्तप्तनलनप व सरकारी खजाने मे जमा करने की जानकारी िे ने का कष्ट करें ।
3. जुमागना रानि आज र्क जमा नहीं की गयी हैं र्ो ना करने की जानकारी का नववरण िे ने का कष्ट करें ।
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.12.2022. The FAA order is not on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Dinesh Kumar, Extension Officer (Ag.) along with Shri Satyapal Singh, E.AA. present in person.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The appellant, while reiterating the contents of RTI Applications pleaded that reply to RTI Applications has not been provided to him by the Respondent.
Respondent submitted that the genesis of the instant matters pertains to plot Khasra no. 172 located at village Rawata which is a landlocked plot surrounded by 'malkiyat' lands on all sides. This plot became Gram Sabha land following a consolidation exercise in which original owner of this plot was given land elsewhere. It continues to be without any access/right of way, therefore, 3 susceptible to encroachment by the landowner on all sides. Being without any access, construction of boundary wall around this plot has also become a serious challenge. He added that Appellant is a habitual RTI Applicant who filed multiple RTI Applications to harass the Respondent Public Authority, however, point-wise reply against present RTI Applications has already furnished to the Appellant vide letters dated 17.05.2023 and 09.12.2022. During hearing, Respondent handed over a copy of his written submissions to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the ground raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeals was non- receipt of reply. In response to which, the Respondent explained that reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant vide letters dated 09.11.2022 and 17.05.2023, a dasti copy of which has been furnished to him during the hearing.
The Commission finds no infirmity in the replies furnished by the Respondent as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, leaving behind no scope for further relief to be granted in these matters.
However, the Commission finds it pertinent to mention that records reveal that the following six cases seeking similar information have been filed by the same Appellant which have been adjudicated by the Commission.
Sl. Case No. Public Authority Order date Decision
No. uploaded
on
1 CIC/REVDP/A/2023/113693 Revenue Department 18/12/2023 20/12/2023
2 Office of the Additional Office of the Additional 30/08/2023 30/08/2023
Distt. Magistrate Distt. Magistrate
3 CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/158181 GNCTD 25/08/2023 25/08/2023
4 CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/151128 GNCTD 25/08/2023 25/08/2023
4
5 CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/142830 GNCTD 11/05/2023 11/05/2023
6 CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/128574 GNCTD 30/12/2022 30/12/2022
Thus, it appears that the Appellant has been repeatedly seeking similar information from the Respondent. Such repetitive litigation is counterproductive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in 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 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 5 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 It is also pertinent to note that 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] has also given its opinion about such vexatious and repetitive litigation crippling the public authorities and 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 while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar observations:
"....... 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 6 law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied Considering the misuse of the RTI Act by repetitive and often vexatious litigation, the Apex Court in the case of 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 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:
"...37. ............................ 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) 7 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..."
Emphasis supplied The aforesaid dicta 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. Therefore, the Appellant is advised to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date: 27-02-2024 8 9