Central Information Commission
R P Verma vs Ordnance Factory Board on 21 April, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos.: CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/121509 + 149210 + 149207 + 149203 + 129459
R P Verma....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Ordnance Factories,
Ordnance Factory,Raipur,
Raipur - 248008.
CPIO,
Ordnance Factory Board,
Ayudh Bhawan,
10 - A, S K Bose Road,
Kolkata - 700001... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Decision 20/04/2020
File No. Date of RTI CPIO Reply First Appeal FAA Order Second Appeal
CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/121509 07/02/2018 24/02/2018 01/03/2018 13/03/2018 02/04/2018
CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/149210 22/03/2018 17/05/2018 17/05/2018 11/06/2018 31/07/2018
CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/149207 03/05/2018 29/05/2018 02/06/2018 05/07/2018 31/07/2018
CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/149203 06/04/2018 07/05/2018 14/05/2018 09/06/2018 31/07/2018
CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/129459 31/01/2018 07/03/2018 09/03/2018 27/03/2018 09/05/2018
lwpukvk;qDr : fnO; izdk"kflUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
1
Information sought:
File No. CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/121509 The Appellant sought to know action taken on his letter dated 11.12.2017routed to Ordnance Factory, Raipur through Ministry of Defencewith respect to his request for revaluation of the result of Painter Trade Test held on 22.11.2012.
File No :CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/149210 The Appellant sought to know action taken on his letter dated 11.12.2017 routed to Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata through Ordnance Factory, Raipuras well as on another letter dated 25.01.2018 with respect to his request for revaluation of the result of Painter Trade Test held on 22.11.2012.
File No :CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/149207 The Appellant sought information through 5 points regarding investigation report of Ordnance Factory, Raipur based on his request for revaluation of the result of Painter Trade Test held on 22.11.2012.
File No :CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/149203 The Appellant sought copy of CPIO's written submission sent to CIC with respect to 7 of his Appeals.
File No :CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/129459 The Appellant sought to know action taken on his reminder letter no.4 dated 05.12.2016 with respect to his request for revaluation of the result of Painter Trade Test held on 22.11.2012.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Observations The instant matters have been clubbed for decision based on an earlier decision dated 05.09.2018 of the bench in a set of 11 Appeals of the Appellant heard and decided against Ordnance Factory, Raipur. The subject matter of these Appeals is the same as the averred 11 Appeals and pertinently, Commission highlighted the apparent misuse of RTI Act manifested by the Appellant by filing RTI Applications and corresponding First & Second Appeals on the same subject matter over a 2 File Nos.: CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/121509 + 149210 + 149207 + 149203 + 129459 significant period of time.The proceedings of hearing held in the said 11 Appeals as well as the decision therein is reproduced hereunder for clarity:
"CPIO expressed her anguish towards Appellant's repetitive RTI Applications and insistence on seeking such information which does not even exist. In this context, Commission inquired as to the number of RTI Applications filed by the Appellant till date, to which CPIO submitted that the exact numbers she will have to find out from their records but affirmed that he started with this advent since year 2012. CPIO desired to put forth a brief background of the Appellant's grievance, and stated that on 30.07.2012 a trade test was held for promotion from Fitter trade to Painter (G) based on Appellant's request for change of trade. However, their competent authority pointed out certain procedural flaws in the conduct of this trade test and therefore quashed the same. Then, a fresh test was held in Nov.2012 wherein all the candidates failed including the Appellant. That, subsequently, Appellant harbored the grievance as to why he was not given benefit of the trade test held in July, 2012 and started believing that he was deliberately failed in the trade test of Nov. 2012.
Appellant objected to the contention of the CPIO to argue that there was no procedural flaw in the July, 2012 trade test and asserted that there was no circular issued ascribing any procedure for trade test during the period between year 2006 and 2012.
xxx Observations While concurring with the opinion of the CPIO, Commission remarked at the numerous Appeals of the Appellant heard in the past concerning the same issue of his promotion. It is irksome to note that the series of filing RTI Applications is not limited to the Appellant but he has got his wife (Vimla Verma) and daughter (Neha Verma) also to file RTI Applications and subsequent Second Appeals on his behalf.
This bench has till date heard more than a dozen of Appeals cumulatively of the Appellant, his wife and daughter, while more than a dozen newly registered cases of the Appellant await decision. As it appears through each of these cases, Appellant is unabashedly channeling his grievance of perceived injustice in his service matter by seeking large volumes of information spanning across several 3 years, disclosure of which has seemingly no relevance to his case yet in a bid to clearly harass the public authority, Appellant continues the practice of misusing his right to information. The grievance of the Appellant is not of such nature which can be considered and rectified by the public authority as evident from the submission of the CPIO yet Appellant has been persistently filing these RTI Applications seeking almost similar information in different manner to merely pressurize the public authority into acceding to his request of change of trade.
Commission also upholds the decision of the CPIO to offer inspection of records in most of the cases as no amount of information will satisfy the Appellant; therefore it is prudent for him to peruse the records and identify what particular information is required by him. As for the two cases, where no reply has been provided by the CPIO, Commission condones the error on account of the repetitive filing of RTI Applications by the Appellant.
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 have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments 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 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 4 File Nos.: CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/121509 + 149210 + 149207 + 149203 + 129459 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.' 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.' 5 A more lucid rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of ShailSahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still.' '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 beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.' The aforesaid dicta particularly resonates with the said set of cases as the Respondent office is a vital part of the Department of Defence Production engaged in the production of warfare equipmentsin the area of land, sea and air systems. If the resources of this office are diverted into addressing the umpteen RTI Applications and First Appeals of the Appellant alone, it will lead to a situation of colossal wastage of its valuable manpower and infrastructure.
Decision In view of the foregoing, Commission finds no scope of action in the matter as far as the RTI Applications are concerned. However, since the underlying cause for Appellant's grievances is on record, Commission is of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice a speaking order of the competent authority regarding the apprehensions and allegation of the Appellant against quashing of the trade test of July 2012 will put to rest all these issues. Accordingly, CPIO is hereby directed to place this order before their competent authority to pass a speaking order on the above terms and provide a copy of the same to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO.
Appellant is hereby warned against the misuse of RTI Act in future and is advised to make judicious use of his right to information. The cases are disposed of accordingly."6
File Nos.: CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/121509 + 149210 + 149207 + 149203 + 129459 Now, it will not be out of place to note that recently, in a set of 7 Appeals of the Appellant decided on 13.03.2020 with respect to CIC, it was observed that Appellant has filed multiple RTI Applications seeking information regarding the matters decided by the Commission with respect to Ordnance Factory, Raipur. In the course of the hearing held on 13.03.2020, Appellant agreed to have received a speaking order of the competent authority on his long standing grievance in compliance with the directions of the Commission contained in its order dated 05.09.2018.
DECISION Adverting to the aforesaid observations, having dealt with a number of Appeals of the Appellant on the same grievance over and over again,Commission does not find it expedient to afford an opportunity of hearing in the instant cases as well as similar cases of the Appellant that may be pending.Commission has considered the instant cases on their merits and observes that in all the cases appropriate reply has been provided by the respective CPIO(s) leaving no further scope of intervention.
Here, Commission deems it fit to highlight the fact that although RTI Act does not expressly provide for imposing costs on a frivolous RTI Applicant or barring such applicants from mounting pressure on the public authorities under the guise of exercising right to information, but where the process of Court is being abused, as held in RajniMaindiratta's case (supra) - '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.'In this context, the concept of inherent powers vested in the superior courts to prevent the abuse of the process of Court can be relied upon by the Commission to derive an analogous power to prevent the misuse of RTI Act, as the Preamble of the Act clearly postulates that it is necessary to harmonise the revelation of information in actual practice with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and another v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd[(1990) 4 SCC 453]held that the legislature has intended and has conceded certain powers to the tribunals in their assigned field of jurisdiction for the efficacious and meaningful exercise of 7 their power. Such powers are implied in every tribunal unless expressly barred.The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under:
"8. There is no doubt that the Tribunal functions as a court within the limits of its jurisdiction. It has all the powers conferred expressly by the statute. Furthermore, being a judicial body, it has all those incidental and ancillary powers which are necessary to make fully effective the express grant of statutory powers. Certain powers are recognised as incidental and ancillary, not because they are inherent in the Tribunal, nor because its jurisdiction is plenary, but because it is the legislative intent that the power which is expressly granted in the assigned field of jurisdiction is efficaciously and meaningfully exercised. The powers of the Tribunal are no doubt limited. Its area of jurisdiction is clearly defined, but within the bounds of its jurisdiction, it has all the powers expressly and impliedly granted. The implied grant is, of course, limited by the express grant and, therefore, it can only be such powers as are truly incidental and ancillary for doing all such acts or employing all such means as are reasonably necessary to make the grant effective. As stated in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (11th edn.) "where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution".
(Emphasis Supplied) The vulnerability of this benevolent statute to such misuse cannot be allowed to perpetuate once Commission has taken cognizance of the intent of the RTI Applicant.It would not be out of place to deem the Appellant as a vexatious/frivolous litigant who has been afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing and any further opportunity of being heard on the same grievances is not going to alter or improve the merits of these cases, rather it would seem as an empty formality. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Keshav Mills Co Ltd. v. Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC 380 on the violability of the rules of natural justice held as under:
"We do not think it either feasible or even desirable to lay down any fixed or rigorous yard-stick in this manner. The concept of natural justice cannot be put into a straight-jacket. It is futile, therefore, to look for definitions or standards of natural justice from various decisions and then try to apply them to the facts of any given case. The only essential point that has to be kept in mind in all cases is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and that the administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably..... See, for instance, the observations of Lord Parker in In re H.K. 8 File Nos.: CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/121509 + 149210 + 149207 + 149203 + 129459 (an infant), (1967) 2 QB 617. It only means that such measure of natural justice should be applied as was described by Lord Reid in Ridge v. Baldwin case (supra) as 'insusceptible of exact definition but what a reasonable man would regard as a fair procedure in particular circumstances'. However, even the application of the concept of fair-play requires real flexibility. Everything will depend on the actual facts and circumstances of a case. As Tucker, L.J., observed in Russell v. Duke of Norfolk, [1949] 1 All ER 109:
'The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject- matter that is being dealt with and so forth.' The concept of vexatious litigation has gained ground over the years through various judgments of the superior courts imposing exemplary costs on such litigants. Moreover, the 192nd report of the Law Commission placed on record a Draft Bill, namely, the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Bill, 2005to 'prevent the institution or continuance of vexatious proceedings, civil and criminal, in the High Courts and Courts subordinate thereto.'; while several states like Maharashtra, Kerala, Goa etc. have already enacted Vexatious Litigation Acts. Thus, the menace caused by vexatious/frivolous litigants is well recognized and if similar obstruction is faced by quasi-judicial bodies particularly with respect to statutes like the RTI Act, which is premised on bringing transparency and accountability in government functioning for the larger good of the public, it is only axiomatic that such misuse ought to be curbed. When we speak of the enormity of public interest entailed in the enactment of RTI Act, it is prudent to hold that in disposing of the multitude of perceived grievances based RTI Applications/First Appeals/Second Appeals filed by the Appellant, the public authorities and the Commission will invariably delay action on the RTI Applications and Appeals filed by other citizens and when we juxtapose the interest of these two categories of citizens exercising their right to information, the interest of the other category will outweigh the interests of such frivolous RTI Applicants.
In light of the aforesaid discussion and observations, Commission rejects the instant cases under Section 19(8)(d) of the RTI Act as being devoid of merit.9
The appeal(s)aredismissed accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काशिस हा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णतस या पत ित) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140/ [email protected] हरो सादसेन,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by User 10 Date: 2020.04.22 13:20:38 IST