Central Information Commission
Amar Kumar Jha vs Indian Army on 12 June, 2019
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
Amar Kumar Jha ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
HQ 36 RAPID (S)
PIN-908436
C/o 56 APO
CPIO,
36 RAPID Sig Regt. (AREN)
Pin- 917836
C/o 56 APO
CPIO,
HQ AOC Centre
PIN- 900453
C/o 56 APO
CPIO,
HQ 12 RAPID
PIN- 908412
C/o 56 APO
CPIO,
RTI Cell, ADG MT(AE),
G - 6, D - 1 Wing,
Sena Bhawan, Gate No. - 04,
IHQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi
CPIO,
O/o Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Border Roads)
Seema Sadak Bhawan, Ring Road
Naraina, Delhi Cantt.-110010
1
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army
CPIO
HQ 36 Infantry Division
PIN- 908436
C/o 56 APO
CPIO
RTI Cell
HQ 12 Corps
C/o 56 APO
CPIO
RTI Cell
HQ, Southern Command
Pune- 411001
CPIO
RTI Cell
HQ, Northern Command
PIN- 908545
C/o 56 APO
CPIO
GE (Army) Central
Multan Lines, Jodhpur
PIN- 342006
CPIO
Additional Directorate General of
Signal Intelligence (SI-1)
PIN-900256
C/o 56 APO
CPIO
Under Secretary
MoD/D (RTI)
Room No. 210, B Wing
Sena Bhawan, New Delhi-110011 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Decision 11.06.2019
2
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army
Second Date of RTI CPIO Reply First Appeal FAA order Second
Appeal/Co Application dated filed on dated Appeal filed
mplaint on
Diary No.
(Correspond
ing to last
digits of File
No.)
123387 16/09/2016 14/12/2016 20/01/2017 No order 25/03/2017
123394 17/12/2016 10/01/2017 20/01/2017 No order 25/03/2017
123384 24/09/2015 30/12/2015 14/02/2016 28/03/2016 25/03/2016
123397 20/07/2016 20/09/2016 10/11/2016 No order 25/03/2017
123390 20/09/2016 19/12/2016 20/01/2017 No order 25/03/2017
123391 23/07/2016 29/12/2016 20/01/2017 No order 25/03/2017
112069 18/07/2016 16/08/2016 10/11/2016 No order 10/02/2017
144407 05/07/2016 22/08/2016 16/09/2016 No order 25/03/2017
155565 23/07/2016 12/08/2016 NA NA 01/08/2017
155573 10/03/2016 18/04/2016 07/05/2016 No order 20/11/2016
&
30/05/2016
174030 24/04/2017 02/06/2017 20/07/2017 No order 07/10/2017
155571 10- 05/05/2016 25/05/2016 No order 20/11/2016
18/03/2016
155560 25/07/2016 13/08/2016 31/08/2016 No order 25/03/2017
155557 18/03/2016 05/05/2016 25/05/2016 No order 20/11/2016
155567 01/04/2017 22/04/2017 05/05/2017 No order 01/08/2017
3
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army
155564 02/08/2016 No reply 10/11/2016 No order 18/04/2017
155556 23/03/2016 No reply 05/07/2016 No order 20/11/2016
155559 22/03/2016 25/05/2016 05/07/2016 No order 20/11/2016
609510 22/08/2017 19/09/2017 07/10/2017 No order 12/01/2018
609443 12/08/2017 21/10/2017 07/10/2017 No order 11/01/2018
170446 25/08/2016 24/09/2016 10/11/2016 No order 05/08/2017
123388 18/07/2016 17/08/2016 20/10/2016 No order 25/03/2017
132418 10/02/2017 22/02/2017 23/03/2017 No order 05/05/2017
&
23/02/2017
132417 22/02/2017 No reply 23/03/2017 No order 05/05/2017
132415 25/07/2016 12/08/2016 20/10/2016 No order 05/05/2017
132416 10/02/2017 No reply 23/03/2017 No order 05/05/2017
155131 29/11/2017 28/12/2017 20/03/2018 No order 28/07/2018
155130 05/08/2017 05/09/2017 20/11/2017 No order 20/03/2018
121464 10/09/2017 28/09/2017 20/11/2017 No order 11/01/2018
121461 01/07/2017 27/09/2017 07/10/2017 No order 11/01/2018
121460 28/08/2017 12/09/2017 07/10/2017 18/11/2017 29/12/2017
121462 29/09/2017 30/11/2017 01/01/2018 No order 20/03/2018
163167 22/06/2017 01/08/2017 08/07/2017 No order 22/08/2017
147773 04/01/2016 08/03/2016 25/05/2016 No order 20/11/2016
147768 15/03/2016 19/09/2016 31/08/2016 No order 26/03/2017
144770 10/01/2016 29/01/2016 25/05/2016 No order 22/11/2016
147771 26/07/2016 19/09/2016 18/12/2016 No order 26/03/2017
4
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army
147777 02/08/2016 Not on 01/02/2017 No order 15/04/2017
record
147774 24/04/2013 08/05/2013 04/03/2016 No order 20/11/2016
174300 24/04/2017 07/06/2017 20/07/2017 No order 07/10/2017
174301 24/04/2017 08/06/2017 20/07/2017 No order 07/10/2017
155570 22/03/2016 10/05/2016 25/05/2016 No order 20/11/2016
Information sought:
File No : CIC/MODEF/A/2017/123387 The Appellant sought to know the authorized Store Holder of restricted survey maps and GS Pamphlets in a Signal Regiment as per Army Rule.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/123394 The Appellant sought daily progress report, action taken and list of Officers/JCOs who processed his 8 representations addressed to 36 RSR (A) Unit.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/123384 The Appellant sought certain information regarding training imparted to SSER trade.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/123397 The Appellant sought information regarding amount collected from soldiers in 12 RSR (A), C/o 56 APO on account of regimental funds and details of its expenditure for past 9 years.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/123390 The Appellant sought information regarding action taken on his representation no. Per/AKL/36/19 dated 01.09.2016.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/123391 The Appellant sought information regarding action taken on his representation nos. Per/AKJ/36/16 and Per/AKJ/36/17 dated 07.07.2016 and 16.07.2016, respectively.
File No : CIC/DODEF/A/2017/112069 The Appellant sought to know the amount of grants received by Indian Army from the Government in the past 9 years and copy of the letter under which it was received.5
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/144407 The Appellant information regarding action taken on his representation nos. Per/AKJ/36/11; Per/AKJ/36/13 and Per/AKJ/36/14 dated 07.06.2016.
File No : CIC/CGDAC/C/2017/155565 The Complainant sought information through 21 points regarding availing warrants for leave.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155573 The Appellant sought inspection of records pertaining to action taken on all his representations filed since 01.01.2012 which were forwarded to Signal Officer-in-Chief.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/174030 The Appellant sought information through 33 points regarding total number of soldiers deputed in the residence of Col. R. Jaydeep & Dy.GOC of 36 RSR and regarding various other daily activities undertaken by the soldiers in 36 RSR.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155571 The Appellant sought to know the account head under which fees received under RTI Act is deposited and statement of such fees received over the last 10 years.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155560 The Appellant sought information through 9 points in the context of Court of Inquiry conducted against him vide letter no. PC-15670784/AKJ/Sigs/01 dated 16.12.2012.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155557 The Appellant sought information regarding total number of employees working in RTI Cell, ADG MT (AE), Sena Bhawan, IHQ of MoD (Army) and expenditure incurred in its functioning; total number of equipment/appliances that are run from electric supply and the speed of the internet in their division along with expenses incurred on it per month.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155567 The Appellant sought inspection of records of HQ, 12 Corps with respect to certain representation sent by him through Ministry of Defence.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155564 The Appellant sought to know the rule under which Ors, JCOs and Officers of Indian Army and in particular of Corps of Signals are entitled for pension.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155556 6 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army The Appellant sought to know which is the authority above the Defence Ministry competent to take action on the representation filed by him sometime in January 2015.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155559 The Appellant sought to know action taken on the false report submitted vide Southern Command CSO (Sigs) letter no. 444218/RTI/Sig4 dated 28.08.2014.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2018/609510 The Appellant sought to know dispatch details vide which five letters referred therein dated between 13.10.2015 to 28.10.2015 were sent to him.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2018/609443 The Appellant sought information through 30 points regarding number of times Part-I was published for SSER; clarifications on action taken against him for carrying mobile phone in the unit premises; rule under which Col. R. Jaydeep and other JCOs are allowed to carry their mobile phones etc. File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/170446 The Appellant sought inspection of his 958 mobile documents.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/123388 The Appellant sought statement of account for stationary articles purchased in the last 9 years in 12 Rapid HQ.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/132418 The Appellant sought information regarding action taken on his representation nos. Per/AKJ/36/30 & Per/AKJ/36/31 dated 21.12.2016 and 31.12.2016, respectively.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/132417 The Appellant sought information through 10 points in terms of when Capt. Sahil Chawla was given charge of CPIO; under which rule soldiers were asked to buy CSD items for Col. Jaydeep.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/132415 Copy of RTI Application illegible.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/132416 The Appellant sought to know dispatch details of the letters vide which information was sent to him on his 4 representations dated between 25.10.2015 to 08.11.2015; certified copies of all of his complaints and concerned documents at 36 Rapid (S), Edn Branch for the period from August 2015 to February 2017.7
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army File No : CIC/DODEF/A/2018/155131 The Appellant sought copy of the letter(s) vide which 38 of his RTI Applications were transferred to different public authorities and dispatch details of the transfer letters.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2018/155130 The Appellant sought to know the purpose for which amount is collected on account of regimental funds; types of grants received by Indian Army from Central Government etc. File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2018/121464 The Appellant sought to know under which rule he was denied Out Pass by a Subedar Major on 27.08.2017.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2018/121461 The Appellant sought information regarding action taken on 10 representations filed by him with Col. R. Jaydeep and Lt. Col. Rahul Lingwal.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2018/121460 The Appellant sought to know rules pertaining to attending PT in the morning followed by the routine parades.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2018/121462 The Appellant sought to know action taken on the representation of his wife Munni Jha sent vide letter dated 07.01.2013 addressed to GOC 12 Corps and details of the number of representations filed by her.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/163167 The Appellant sought certified copies of all documents pertaining to the punishments imposed on him by 36 RSR.
File No : CIC/MESER/A/2017/147773 The Appellant sought information in the context of debits shown in his pay slip dated March 2015 against rent and allied category in terms of details of the bill based on which the amount of Rs. 11,652/- was debited.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/147768 The Appellant sought inspection of all his representations on which ADGSI has taken action.
File No : CIC/DODEF/A/2017/144770 The Appellant sought inspection of documents pertaining to action taken on his representation no. Per/AKJ/58/45 dated 20.01.2015 addressed to Defence Minister.8
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/147771 The Appellant sought to know the details of PIO and FAA of ADGSI (IDS), Pin - 900256, C/o. 56 APO and details of expenditure incurred in purchase of stationary by ADGSI branch for the last 3 years.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/147777 The Appellant sought information regarding rules governing issue of warrants to soldiers on sick leave.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/147774 The Appellant sought to know action taken on his representation dated 19.07.2012 addressed to Defence Minister and copy of report given by the Indian Army to the Ministry in this regard.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/174300 The Appellant sought to know the total cost incurred in repairing the government accommodation of Dy. GOC, Brig. Vasudesh Arya; duties assigned to the said officer etc. File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/174301 The Appellant sought inspection of records pertaining to all the letters sent by him to CPIO and FAA till date.
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155570 The Appellant sought to know the complete details of free/CV warrants issued to soldiers/JCOs/Officers from the past 10 years in 12 RSR (A), C/o. 56 APO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal(s) & Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Observations Commission has clubbed these 42 Appeals & Complaint of Amar Kumar Jha for cumulative disposal based on its earlier decision dated 02.02.2018 in a set of 5 Appeals filed by him viz. File Nos.:
CIC/IARMY/A/2017/189009/SD CIC/IARMY/A/2017/188258/SD CIC/IARMY/A/2017/188249/SD CIC/IARMY/A/2017/188259/SD CIC/SD/A/2016/000178/SD 9 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army The observations of the Commission in the aforesaid decision dated 02.02.2018 is squarely applicable to the facts of these cases as they emanate from similar subject matter and pertain to the same time period discussed therein. The averred decision is reproduced hereunder for clarity:
"Observations Commission has taken into consideration the submissions of the CPIOs.
In the instant set of Appeals, it has been observed that appropriate reply has been provided on the RTI Application by the concerned CPIO's leaving no scope for intervention of the Commission.
Commission has clubbed the above mentioned Appeals for decision as the Appellant has been filing multiple RTI Applications with several public authorities under the Ministry of Defence. Second Appeals corresponding to these RTI Application have also been heard aplenty by this bench. The common feature in most of these Appeals is seeking information regarding action taken on his correspondences; dak dispatch details; questioning the various actions of public authorities. There has been consistent record of adverse remarks made by this bench for the Appellant's apparent misuse of the RTI Act to garner some sort of relief in his service related grievances. It is also imperative to note that Appellant also has a number of RTI Applications and Appeals filed on behalf of him through his wife Munni Jha seeking the same kind of information as him.
Some of these matters are reproduced hereunder:
In File No. CIC/SD/A/2016/000212 decided on 15/06/2017 it was held:
'Commission expresses displeasure over the delay in providing the information on the RTI Application by Respondent No.2. However, in view of the multiple Appeals of the Appellant heard and decided earlier, Commission finds merit in the submission of Respondent No.1, as the Appellant clearly appears to be a disgruntled employee trying to harass the public authorities by filing inane RTI Applications and corresponding Second Appeals. Commission takes grave exception of the Appellant's conduct and advises him to not misuse the provisions of RTI Act for settling personal scores.' 10 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army In File No. CIC/RK/A/2016/001097/SD decided on 22/05/2017 it was held:
'The Appellant is hereby advised to desist from misusing the provisions of RTI Act as well as from wasting the time of the Commission and the public authorities. The repetitive filing of Appeals without any merit may compel the Commission to reject any further Appeals or Complaints filed by the Appellant.' In File No. CIC/RK/A/2016/001103/SD decided on 10/01/2017 it was held:
'Commission observes from the perusal of the RTI Application that the same is largely outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has raised hypothetical queries. Further, it may also be noted that the Appellant is pursuing a grievance through multiple RTI Applications and Second Appeals, and the fact that he has been provided an inspection of all relevant records leaves no further scope for the Commission to interfere with the response of the CPIO.' In File No. CIC/RK/A/2016/001098/SD decided on 10/01/2017 it was held:
'Commission observes that the Appellant is pursuing a grievance through multiple RTI Applications and Second Appeals, and the fact that he has been provided an inspection of all relevant records leaves no further scope for the Commission to interfere with the response of the CPIO.' In File No. CIC/SD/A/2016/000061 decided on 06/01/2017 it was held:
'Commission observes that the Appellant is of the habit of submitting multiple RTI Applications in his and his wife's (Munni Jha) name to address grievance related issues for which other forums in the department already exist. RTI Act should not be abused for settlement of grievances.' In File No. CIC/CC/A/2016/000946/SD decided on 22/05/2017 it was held:
'In view of the foregoing observations, Commission advices the Appellant to desist from misusing the provisions of RTI Act and wasting the time of the Commission and 11 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army the public authorities. The repetitive filing of Appeals without any merit may compel the Commission to reject any further Appeals or Complaints filed by the Appellant.' In view of the aforesaid observation(s) in various orders concerning the RTI Applications filed by the Appellant seeking information on repetitive matters, Commission strongly denounces this approach resulting in misusing the channel of RTI Act. The Appellant appears to be doing so despite the express knowledge of the fact that he is pursuing a matter of no larger public interest, rather concerning only his perceived personal grievance. It is appalling to note that the public authority is being unabashedly harassed by filing umpteen vexatious RTI Applications. It is also not clear as to what kind of information will satisfy the Appellant as it appears he is merely intending to compel the public authorities into addressing his grievances. This being the ulterior motive is manifest from the bare perusal of the queries of these RTI Applications.
The larger issue then here is the repetitive nature of these RTI Applications and the motivated attempt at putting the public authority as well as the Commission to test. To highlight this larger issue, it is imperative to refer to certain observations of the Commission in this regard. Some of these being:
File No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA decided on 25.06.2014 '.....Though Right to Information Act, 2005 did not have any specific provision to bar the re- petition for information like Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the universal principle of civil justice 'res judicata' will certainly apply and the repeated request can be denied. Two Latin maxims form the basis of this rule, they are:
'interest republicae ut sit finis litium' (= it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation) and 'nemo devet vis vexari pro una et eadem cause" (=no man should be taxed twice over for the same cause).
If presumed that the PIOs, First Appellate Authorities and the Commissions are statutorily compelled to entertain the repeated RTI applications, information litigation and woes of public authorities would never end. An Appeal, as provided by law is legal, because it is a legal opportunity to challenge the order on reasonable and legal grounds. Engaging with the application which is same or slightly modified request for information which was 12 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army responded earlier will be certainly against the principles of natural justice- both procedural and substantive, as far as right to information is concerned.' '.....The Commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority, and based on the responses file a bunch of RTI questions from the same or other wings 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 questions are generated out of the same and in the same proportion the number of repeated first appeals and second appeals also will be growing.' File No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00374 & 375 decided on 28.08.2006 '....the nature of queries and the information sought are such that the information seeker would never be satisfied because the promotion of self interest, rather than public interest, was dominant, as the appellant had sought redressal of grievances.' FileNos.CIC/SG/C/2011/000760,CIC/SM/A/2011/000926/SG,CIC/SM/A/2011/0 01111/SG,CIC/SG/A/201 1/002909 decided on 17.10.2012 '....The Commission, at several appellate hearings, has explained to the complainant that under RTI Act, only the information as per records can be made available; multiple RTI applications and appeals would not provide him any information beyond the records that exists. The Commission recognizes the fact that valuable time of the complainant, respondent-public authority as well as the Commission is being spent in merely going through the motions prescribed under the RTI Act again and again to obtain similar information. .... At this juncture the Commission would like to mention that though the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used indiscriminately to fulfill the demands of one individual. In the present matter, it must be noted that the Complainant is pursuing multiple litigation and various public authorities are being asked to divert an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of resources just to respond to hundreds of RTI applications filed by him. ...The Commission is also conscious of the fact that it is financed by the poorest man in this country who may be starving to death. The complainant by repeatedly filing similar RTI applications and appeals with the respondent public authority and the Commission, is wasting public resources' 13 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army The foregoing stance can be more so exemplified in the light of 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 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 14 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army 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 stopthereto.' A more cogent rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of Shail Sahni 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.' [Emphasis supplied in all the above citations] DECISION Commission believes it will suffice to say, a composite reading of the preceding paragraphs lends only one conclusion that the present set of Appeals are largely devoid of 15 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army any merit as CPIOs have addressed the queries in the letter and spirit of RTI Act. The public authorities have spent considerable time and resources in responding to the RTI Applications. Moreover, it is deemed appropriate that the Commission as well as the public authority are at liberty to take recourse to the rationale of this order in any of the future RTI Applications and/or Appeals of the Appellant where it is established that information sought is premised on the same subject matters which have been addressed earlier. The Appellant is further advised to not cause a mockery of the spirit of the RTI Act by unnecessarily flooding the public authority with RTI Applications on the same matter involving no larger public interest. It is abundantly made clear that any number of RTI Applications on the same issue will not alter the information that was held and parted with by the Respondents.
The sheer volume of these Appeals/Complaints which are based on RTI Applications seeking frivolous and mundane information prove 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 as relied upon in the decision of 02.02.2018 (supra).
Decision Commission summarily dismisses the instant Appeals and Complaint as bereft of any merit in light of the aforesaid observations. Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
16
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army
Amar Kumar Jha
Sainik Niwas, Sanichra Sthan,
Mushapur,
Samastipur - 848101
17
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army
ANNEXURE
1. CIC/MODEF/A/2017/123387
2. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/123394
3. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/123384
4. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/123397
5. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/123390
6. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/123391
7. CIC/DODEF/A/2017/112069
8. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/144407
9. CIC/CGDAC/C/2017/155565
10. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155573
11. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/174030
12. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155571
13. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155560
14. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155557
15. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155567
16. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155564
17. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155556
18. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155559
19. CIC/IARMY/A/2018/609510
20. CIC/IARMY/A/2018/609443
21. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/170446
22. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/123388
23. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/132418
24. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/132417
25. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/132415
26. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/132416
27. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/155131
28. CIC/IARMY/A/2018/155130
29. CIC/IARMY/A/2018/121464
30. CIC/IARMY/A/2018/121461
31. CIC/IARMY/A/2018/121460
32. CIC/IARMY/A/2018/121462
33. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/163167
34. CIC/MESER/A/2017/147773
35. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/147768
36. CIC/DODEF/A/2017/144770
37. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/147771
38. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/147777
39. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/147774
40. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/174300
41. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/174301
42. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155570
18
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army
19