Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Mormugao Port Trust on 1 March, 2021
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412
In the matter of:
Samir Sardana ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Mormugao Port Trust,
Administrative Office,
Headland, Sada, Goa.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 23.05.2018 FA : 13.10.2018 SA : 20.12.2018
FAO : 02.11.2018
CPIO Reply : 19.09.2018 Hearing : 03.02.2021
(not on record)
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Samir Sardana participated in the hearing on being contacted on
his telephone.
Respondent: Shri Jerome Clement, Sr. Dy. Traffic Manager and CPIO for Traffic
Department, Mormugao Port Trust participated in the hearing on being contacted
on his telephone.
Page 1 of 29
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412
ORDER
Information Sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 23.05.2018 seeking the following information:Page 2 of 29
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 Page 3 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 Page 4 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 Page 5 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 Page 6 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 The CPIO vide letter dated 19.09.2018 provided item-wise information to the Appellant. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.10.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 02.11.2018 disposed of the instant First Appeal (not on record).
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
At the outset, the Commission asked as to how many RTI Applications have been filed on the same subject-matter, he replied that only 4 RTI Applications have been filed before the Respondent public authority but the same are not repetitive in nature.
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent public authority. He further stated that the Respondent relying upon a newspaper article has illegally sought his citizenship proof and requested to penalize them on this count. At the instance of the Commission, he explained that the Respondent public authority is in the verge of shutting down and despite that, the Respondent public authority has allegedly resorted to selling certain information in the market/to various private companies, for which he has Page 7 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 proof/evidence. He added that the stand taken by the Respondent that the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) is incorrect as the said data/information is already available in the public domain. He asserted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is not only in public interest but also in the national interest. Upon queried by the Commission as to how the information sought is in the public/national interest, he explained that the country's maritime security and efficiency is in the public interest. He further explained that the Respondent is a loss making venture, post the ban of mining in Goa and the ban on coal handling at Mormugao Port Trust, Goa. He relied upon a newspaper article dated 20.03.2018, published in The Indian Express, Panaji Edition in which the then Union Shipping Minister had categorically averred that the continued losses at the Mormugao Port Trust might result in shutdown.
The Respondent submitted that available and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant. He requested the Commission to treat the contents of his written submission dated 19.11.2020 as part and parcel of his oral arguments. He further submitted that he will abide by the orders of the Commission, if any in the matter.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Anant V.P. Chodnekar, CPIO and FA/CAO vide letter dated 17.11.2020, wherein he has stated as under:
"1. Mormugao Port Trust is a body Corporate under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and provides various services to the Port Users and the Nation for facilitating import-export trade and commerce in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There are seven separate departments in the Mormugao Port Trust, each having independent and distinct activity to perform under their control and the activities of the finance department are looked after by the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer (FA&CAO). Undersigned has taken the charge of the Finance Department with effect from 08-11-2019 consequent to the transfer of my Page 8 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 predecessor Shri Vinayak Rao B.S. to the New Mangalore Port Trust as per the order of the Central Government.
2. The above named Appellant has filed around 08 different Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 (Diary No. CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637355, 637402, 637389, 637410, 637391, 637412, 637392 & 637409) and further another 04 Complaints under Section 18 of the Act (CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637414, 637415, 637419 & 637379) and the contents of all the said appeals as well as all the complaints appears to be same and completely mixed up and written in a most vague form, completely difficult for any CPIO or any independent department to severe and to respond in respect to the matter relating to its functioning.
3. From the records of the Finance Department, it is observed that, the present Appellant/Complainant had submitted 4 applications under section 2(f), 2(j) and 6(1) of the RTI Act for seeking information to the Office of Finance Department on 23.08.2018 when my predecessor, Shri Vinayaka Rao B.S. was the HoD & CPIO for the Finance Department. The issues/queries raised in each of the application were many in numbers and largely concerning the functioning of various other department whereas the subject covering Finance Department was to the minimum extent found only on his Application No.1 and No.2 (partly).
4. Accordingly, the then FA&CAO & CPIO for Finance Department vide his covering letter No. FD/Est-1(45)2018/590 dated 28.08.2018 forwarded the copy of the Appellant's/Complainant's Application No.1, 2 & 4 to the CPIO for the Traffic Department to examine and furnish the information concerning his department directly to the information seeker. Copy of the Application No.1 & 3 was sent to the CPIO for Mechanical Engineering Department with similar request. And a copy of the Application No.2 transferred to the CPIO for Marine Department to respond to the extent pertaining to their departments directly and another copy of the Application No.2 & 4 was sent to the CPIO for the General Administration Department for enabling them to submit the information directly to the information seeker. While transferring the copies of the Applications by the then erstwhile CPIO for the Finance Department in his transfer communication as stated above has clearly mentioned that, the information pertaining to their respective department to be furnished directly to their information seeker as such the transfer was made impliedly under Section 6(3) of the Act.
5. As said in the commencement part of the present submission that, some limited part queries of Application No. 1 and No.2 were concerning Finance Department and to the large extent the remaining queries/matter was substantially relating to the functioning of the other department. The then CPIO for the Finance Department vide communication No. FA/B-13/2018/195 dated 18.09.2018 Page 9 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 furnished the relevant information covered by the Appellants Application No.2 to the fullest extent and a copy of the same here annexed as ANNEXURE-I.
6. Whereas the then CPIO for the Finance Department vide his communication No. FA/B-13/2018/194 dated 18.09.2018 agreed to furnish the relevant information covered by item No. 4.1 in the Application No.2 and requested the present Appellant/Complainant to make arrangement for depositing the costs of Rs. 230/- for supply of 115 pages the information sought by him. A copy of the said communication dated 18.09.2018 here annexed as ANNEXURE-II.
7. In the above said communication dated 18.09.2018 - ANNEXURE-II, a respectful statement was also made by the then CPIO for the Finance Department stating that, the information seeker to kindly provide a copy of document confirming his citizenship which the Appellant was impliedly required to submit only at the time payment of the costs/collection of the public information. The then CPIO for the Finance Department has made the statement most respectfully after possibly viewing the media news that the Mr. Samir Sardana, a son of retired Major General arrested in Goa for suspected terror links. Hon'ble Chief Minister of Goa also tabled papers in the Legislative Assembly. He was arrested by the ATS Police at Vasco Railway Station for suspicious movements and had seized 4 mobile phones, six passports, 23 SIM Cards and laptop whereas ATS had managed to obtain some 35 e-mail ID's and also discovered internet-downloaded data about previous bomb blast in the country and information about bomb- making. Copies of the news item 05 in nos. of annexed as ANNEXURE-III.
8. In such a circumstances as explained above, without casting any stigma, the then CPIO for the Finance Department has respectfully agreed to part away the information to the information seeker after his providing the costs by showing his citizenship identity and the said statement was made in absolute good faith.
9. And whereas the Appellant failed to deposit the costs and to collect the information sought and on the contrary through email dated 17.10.2018 lodged an Appeal before the First Appellate Authority, Shri Guruprasad Rai, Deputy Chairman & FAA against the communication No. FA/B-13/2018/194 dated 18.09.2018 mixing issues concerning other CPIO's and Departments.
Subsequently, the Appellant made another 8 different appeals before the FAA by consolidating the matter of all the CPIO's and to pursued the same by sending communication by email dated 20.10.2018, 28.10.2018 and 01.11.2018, copies of the same here annexed as ANNEXURE-IV collectively.
10. And whereas the First Appellate Authority pleased to consider the various joint and mixed appeals made by the present Appellant/Complainant and disposed of the same vide his Common Order/Communication No. GAD/LB(46- Page 10 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 RTI)/2018/2500 dated 05.11.2018 and a copy of the same here annexed as ANNEXURE-V.
11. This CPIO for Finance Department of the Mormugao Port Trust makes his submission out of abundant caution in all the matter that is, 12 nos appeals under section 19 of the RTI Act and 4 nos complaints under section 18 of the Act even though the issues raised in all the above applications directly does not pertains to this CPIO to avoid a situation or any such allegations from the appellant/complainant at a later stage that this CPIO did not furnish his submission or reply in any of those matters. Therefore, the present submission of this respondent kindly be taken on record along with the submission made by other respective CPIOs of the other departments in the respective matters.
12. In the light of the submissions made above, it is abundantly clear that, the then CPIO for the Finance Department has done his lawful duty to segregate his part of the information relevant to his department and to furnish to the Appellant/Complainant even though the same was jumbled by the information pertaining to several other CPIO's/Departments. Further, the First Appellate Authority was considerate enough to entertain such a jumbled up appeals and issued his order dated 05.11.2018 as stated above disposing off his all the first appeals together jointly. Therefore, the prayers made by the present Appellant/Complainant for imposing punishment under section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act on the concerned CPIO's is completely unjust and improper. Further, the prayer made by the Appellant/Complainant for issuing Censures on the First Appellate Authority is totally uncalled, unjustified and in the circumstances deserves to be condemned and rejected with warning to the Appellant/Complainant.
13. Therefore, it is prayed that:
a) By an order of the Hon'ble Commission both the Appeals and Complaints preferred against the CPIO for the Finance Department be dismissed with costs;
b) By an order the Hon'ble Commission may reject all the reliefs claimed by the Appellant/Complainant as not sustainable in law; and
c) Any other order the Hon'ble Commission may deem to be fit in the circumstances of the present case.Page 11 of 29
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Jerome Clement, CPIO for Traffic Department and Dy. Traffic Manager, Mormugao Port Trust vide letter dated 19.11.2020, wherein he has stated as under:
"...
PIO to provide the top 15 items imported and exported from/through MPT in Break Bulk form by quantity and FOB/CIF value for the year and imports and exports separately (as the same items are imported and exported) for the last three years PIO to provide top 15 items imported and exported from/through MPT in containers - for each year and FOB/CIF value separately (as some items are imported and exported) for last 3 years
a) Para 4 of application No. 4. - On perusal of para 8.1 of the Memo with reference to value of EXIM Data by product and quantity, the information w.r.t. total quantity was provided vide our letter No. TM/443/2018/1151 dated 19.09.2018 (Annexure - A). Further it is submitted that since the shippers are not registered with the Port, does not maintain FOB/CIF value of import and export.
b) Para 8.1.1 of the memo - No comments. The applicant has used unparliamentarily and derogatory language. Not applicable.
c) 8.1.2 of the Memo - No comments as no data is maintained.
d) 8.1.3 of the memo - The extract from Case Law Digest of CIC is enclosed (Annexure - B).
e) 8.1.4 of the memo - The extract from Case Law Digest of CIC is enclosed (Annexure - B).
f) Para 8.1.7 - Value is not maintained.
g) Para 8.2 - Mormugao Port Trust is a service provider for EXIM trade. The charges for services rendered by the Port is charges as per the Scale of Rate as approved by the TAMP. Mormugao Port does not have any relation w.r.t.
value of product handled by the customers and the same is not maintained at Port an hence could not be provided.
h) Para 8.2.1 - No comments. Unparliamentarily
i) Para 8.3 of the appeal - IEC, value is not maintained Page 12 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 PIO to confirm that it has carried out a benchmarking study of the Port operations
j) Para 8.4 - The RTI application was transferred by FA&CAO to Traffic Department and in compliance of the Act, the available information was provided to the applicant vide our letter No. TM443/2018/1151 dated 19.09.2018. It is humbly submitted that as per our understating, the Right to information Act is attracted only in cases when the information is available with the Public Authority, which is in the form of records, documents, memos, etc. as defined in Section 2(f) and (j) of the RTI act. It is also respectfully submitted that information as admissible under the RTI Act to be disclosed, have always been promptly furnished as and when sought for and complied."
A written explanation has been received by the Commission from the Appellant vide letter dated 07.11.2020, wherein he has alleged that the Respondent has provided him an illegal and negligent reply. He has further alleged mala fide and fraudulent intent on the part of the PIO and the FAA. He has termed the action of the Respondent as nonsensical rejection of the information as the same is already available in the public domain.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Appellant in his written submission has adopted a convoluted method to express the facts of the instant case. In fact, the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application also runs more than 6 pages. In addition, the Appellant has quoted several orders of the Commission, judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as a reference has also been made to the orders of National Green Tribunal, in order to support his claim for information. The Commission is of the view that as much as the CPIO has a statutory responsibility to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act, the Applicants filing a request under RTI Act should also keep in Page 13 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 mind that they should not transgress the letter and spirit of the RTI Act by flooding RTI Applications, which are cumbersome, protracted and circumlocutory in nature. The Commission severely admonishes the Appellant for going beyond the stipulated word limit, which has not only troubled the Respondent to ascertain what information has been sought and pertains to which Department. In this regard, the Bench refers to Rule 3 of the RTI Rules, 2012, which says:
3. Application Fee.- An application under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, excluding annexures, containing address of the Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant:
Provided that no application shall be rejected only on the ground that it contains more than five hundred words.
The Commission, therefore, opines that the Appellant instead of seeking information in a reasonable and comprehensible way; has resorted to adopt a tortuous method containing quite a lot of issues/queries in a disorganized/indecipherable manner, resulting in unfathomable hurdles on the part of the Respondent. The Appellant being a responsible citizen who poses to be concerned about the functionality of the Respondent public authority must impliedly know his limitations while filing an RTI query before any Respondent public authority. The Commission strictly cautions him that in future, he shall holistically adhere to the relevant provisions of the RTI Rules, 2012 while filing any RTI Application before any public authority.
Further, the Commission finds it pivotal to aver at this juncture, that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application, First Appeal, Second Appeal followed by never ending written submissions and counter submissions has time and again avowed that the information sought is not just in public interest but in national interest (without substantiating/justifying the same) and has questioned as to how certain Page 14 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 information is available in public domain. It is pertinent to state herein that the Appellant's contention is rather preposterous because mere statements such as 'involving larger public interest' and 'national interest' do not suffice and the onus to prove the same lies with the Appellant. In fact, the Appellant in the present First Appeal has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of B.S. Mathur v. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court vide W.P.(C) 295 and 608 of 2011. The Appellant has made a statement in his First Appeal that "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer...". The Commission without denying the said fact draws the Appellant's attention that the Appellant has sought information regarding Iron Ore exports in the last five years (the preceding five years from the date of filing the instant RTI Application). He has specifically sought the Respondent to provide the name of the CEO/Promoter, IEC data, legal entity registration data and the legal entity status of 15 shippers as maintained in the records of MPT. The Commission points out that though it is not mandatory to provide reasons for seeking information under the RTI Act, but the same does not mean that an applicant can seek all/any information under the sky. The Commission will not be incorrect in saying that the Appellant has relatively misinterpreted the term "information". It has been clearly defined at Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as under:
2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -
(f)"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
Page 15 of 29CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 In view of the above, it is clearly evident that the information which is available in record or accessible by a public authority can only be provided under the RTI Act. In the instant case, the Appellant has not only included the queries pertaining to different Departments but has also sought voluminous information in a single RTI Application, which invariably counteracts the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and the said attempt is erratic in nature.
In this regard, the Commission finds it RELEVANT and JUST to rely upon the following judgments:
a. The fact that the onus to establish mala fide or unreasonable conduct of the CPIO is on the Appellant is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on 01.06.2012) held as under:
"61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure Page 16 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 on them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger will for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute.
It is important to mention herein that the Appellant in the instant Second Appeal has prayed as under:
Penalty on the PIO (under Section 19(8)(c), of the RTI Act, 2005); Dismissal of the PIO/FAA on account of illegal, deliberate, malafide and baseless rejection of RTI Applications (and violation of CCS Rules, as stated in Para 2.4.2);
Administrative action and/strictures, against the PIO (under Section 20(2), of the RTI Act, 2005);
Impose Maximum Penalty, on the PIO under Section 20(1), of the RTI Act,2005: Direct the Respondent to refund the Application fee paid by Complainant while submitted RTI Application, as per section (7)(6) of the RTI Act; Provide the information free of cost, as per section (7)(6) of the RTI Act; Invoke its powers under the RTI Act to issue any other direction or recommendation as it may deem appropriate;
Direct the public authority to make entry in Service Book/Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the Respondent for defying the provisions of the Act Compensation for the Appellant for pecuniary and other loss [Reproduced verbatim] Upon a plain reading of the foregoing, the Commission is left with no other alternative to infer that the Appellant is not seeking the information from the Respondent in public/national interest; instead, it appears that he is on a mission to seek vengeance or has some personal vendetta against the Respondent public authority.Page 17 of 29
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 b. Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors., W.P.(C) 3114/2007, is also pertinent, wherein the Hon'ble Court stated as under:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
In the instant Second Appeal, the Appellant has stated the infra as critical facts:
"PIO has not replied to some information";
"the PIO has provided misleading information and outright lies and fraud"; "the PIO has made an illegal rejection u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act without basis and reasoning and its applicability to the information sought"; the PIO has not transferred the RTI Application to other PIOs of the public authority who have the information or have additional information or have the complete information"
The aforesaid statements of the Appellant are very much unclear as to which information has not been provided to him and which information is misleading. The Commission also notes that even during the hearing, the Appellant rather makes an attempt to mystify both the Commission as well as the Respondent by taking refuge on unconnected events or mentioning certain things without any proof. The Commission is self-assured that the Appellant during the hearing is always beating around the bush instead of specifying as to what information he has sought or what information he wishes to seek. The modus operandi adopted by the Appellant is nothing but a classic example of systematic persecution as well as wasting precious time of the public authority as well as the Commission.Page 18 of 29
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 c. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr., W.P.(C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009, stated as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. ...
The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
Upon going through the reply dated 19.09.2018, the Commission finds that the Respondent has provided available and relevant information to the Appellant not only RTI Application no. 2, but also on RTI Application no. 1 and 4, though the same is not a subject-matter of discussion herein.
d. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries, [AIR 1980 SC 1946] has stated as under:
"... filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings..."
It is candidly clear that by reading the Appellant's RTI Application, First Appeal/Complaint, Second Appeal followed by the never ending written submissions and counter submissions are nothing but vexatious for the reason that the Appellant's every statement/averment is supported with a document such as Page 19 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 screenshots of some private sector websites has been provided. The Appellant has captioned every screenshot by questioning the Respondent public authority as to how the said portal is in possession with the EXIM (export-import) data for 200 ports. The Commission is rather baffled to note that the Appellant, who researches comprehensively, has relatively not appreciated the fact that a PIO/CPIO is not supposed to provide clarification, not supposed to answers to questions/queries etc. In the instant case, the Appellant has referred to a decision of the National Green Tribunal, which had questioned the actions of the Respondent regarding granting Environmental Clearance. The Appellant has neither apprised the Commission regarding how the said reliance of the National Green Tribunal's decision/order causes an impact in deciding the instant matter. In addition, the Appellant has placed reliance on European Convention of Human Rights, American Convention of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, without even ascertaining the fact as to whether India has ratified them or not. It seems that the Appellant has failed to comprehend the fact that whenever there is a conflict between two statutes, the lex loci is the shorthand version of the choice of law rules that determine the lex causae. Even so, he has not even substantiated as to how the Articles of the aforesaid instruments/multi-national treaty is applicable in the instant case. In addition, he has also used words viz., non-sensical, foolish etc, if truth be told, such words are not just improper; they are inappropriate and indecent as well. Hence, the Commission cautions him to desist from using such intemperate language.
Page 20 of 29CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 e. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the issue in great detail in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal [AIR 2003 SC 280, para 11], wherein J.Pasayat has held as under:
"... 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 oppresses 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 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] In the instant case, the Appellant is not just pressurizing the Respondent public authority by seeking all and sundry information, but also harassing them by filing multiple queries followed by reminders, e-mail communications etc. Not to forget to mention the fact that the Respondent has even relied upon several orders of this Commission. In this regard, the Appellant is being educated that a Commission Page 21 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 passes an order after ascertaining the facts and circumstances of a particular case and the orders are passed on case-to-case basis. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Appellant has repeatedly cited that he has not been provided a fair hearing by the First Appellate Authority. The Commission is well aware of the fact that the Latin phrase 'Audi Alteram Partem' is an essential principle of law, which means that no person should be judged without providing a fair hearing. The Commission would like to draw the Appellant's attention that a fair hearing can be provided if the representation is made in a just and fair manner. The Commission unavoidably has to mention the fact that the Appellant is in a habit of filing RTI Applications in a numbered manner i.e., 'RTI Application No. 1, ... No. 2, ... No. 3 and No. 4'. Further, the Appellant has a set pattern of enclosing all or more than one RTI Application, which is not just confusing but irksome as well. In this regard, the Commission counsels the Appellant that Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, defines as under:
6.(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to-
...
...
[Emphasis supplied] A plain reading of the aforesaid Section makes it amply clear that the Parliament of India, while enacting the Act has categorically provided a right to an Indian citizen that he/she shall make a request and not requests. Adding on to it, the Appellant has made it a practice that he sends e-mail reminders with subject-line "Awaiting FAA Hearing Notice - w.r.t 8 (Eight) 1st Appeals" ; "Awaiting FAA Hearing Notice - w.r.t 9 (Nine) 1st Appeals.
Page 22 of 29CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 f. It is further pertinent to mention herein that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the matter of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) vs. B. Bharathi., W.P. No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014 has also given its opinion about such vexatious 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] g. It is furthermore pertinent to mention herein that the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Shail Sahni v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors., W.P.(C) 845/2014 has stated as under:
"... Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. 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 law..." [Emphasis supplied] h. In the matter of Rajni Mendiratta v. Dte. of Education (North West-B]., W.P.(C) no. 7911/2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.10.2015 stated as under:
"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..."Page 23 of 29
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 The Commission considers that the Appellant's move to seek voluminous information followed by his counter to every reply/letter of the Respondent and filing constant written submissions and counter submissions does not make him a citizen who fights for exposing corruption/arbitrariness and to improve/correct the governance. Instead, it proves that the Appellant wants to correct a wrong that has been perceivably done and the only intention is to get justice for himself. The Appellant rather appears to have converted the provisions of the RTI Act as a tool of oppression/intimidation, which the Commission discourages outrightly.
i. In the matter of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors., AIR 2011 SC 3336, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"... The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and
(j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act.
But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution of India. 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 Page 24 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use..."
j. In the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"33. ... The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interests...
...
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... ... 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 prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties..." [Emphasis supplied] Page 25 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 k. In the matter of Mr. Amit Pande vs. CPIO & General Manager (Legal), Small Industries Development Bank of India, Lucknow vide File No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001398/SG, a coordinate Bench of this Commission vide order dated 07.09.2011 has held as under:
It is relevant to mention that the Supreme Court of Indian in Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appeal (Civil) No. 2298/2001 (judgment dated 22/03/2001) has clarified as follows:
"... it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of stature that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statue are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. The Courts have adhered to the principle that efforts should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature and it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surpluses, if they can have a proper application in circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of the statute."
The principle laid down above has been reiterated time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The golden rule of statutory interpretation, as laid down by the Supreme Court of India, has the force of law. If the said rule is to be applied, then the term 'a request' must be given its natural and ordinary meaning, which certainly does not appear to mean 'one category of information'. If at all a meaning is ascribed to the term ' a request', it would mean 'an application' seeking information under the RTI Act. Even from a plain reading of Section 6(1) and 7(1) of the RTI Act, there does not appear to be any embargo on the scope of such request or application. In other words, this Bench rules that there is no legal requirement on an applicant's part to restrict the scope of her RTI application only one subject matter.
...
Page 26 of 29CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 At this juncture, it would be pertinent to mention that what constitutes a 'single subject matter' has neither been defined in the RTI Act, the rules and regulations framed thereunder and not even by the then Chief/Information Commissioners in the said decisions. No parameters have been laid down by the then Chief/Information Commissioner by which an applicant and the PIO can determine whether the information sought pertains to one-subject matter. In the absence of any means to determine what tantamount to 'one subject matter', the PIO can, at his discretion, furnish part information claiming that the remaining information sought in the RTI application pertains to a different subject matter for which a separate RTI application is required to be filed. The exercise of such discretion by the PIO is likely to be subjective resulting in arbitrary curtailment of the fundamental right to information of citizens and unnecessary expenditure of money. In the absence of any clear definition of what 'one category of request' means it would only lead to arbitrary refusals of information under the RTI Act, leading to clogging of the appellate mechanisms. However, rules framed by the competent authority could put some reasonable restrictions on the length of the RTI application."
In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the Respondent has provided available and relevant information to the Appellant in the instant case and the same is being upheld. Further, the Commission finds no illegality on the part of the Respondent for seeking proof of citizenship because considering the importance and sensitivity of the information sought in the instant RTI Application as well as the alleged antecedents of the Appellant, the Respondent public authority has on a selective basis and as a matter of abundant caution sought proof of citizenship from the Appellant. The Commission after going through the letters/replies sent by the Respondent to the Appellant, does not find any mala fide on the Respondent's part in seeking the proof of citizenship. There is absolutely no doubt that information under Section 3 of the RTI Act can be sought only by an Indian citizen. However, it is to be noted that the public authority has the liberty to seek proof of citizenship from an applicant, when he/she is seeking information, which is not just barred/exempted from disclosure, Page 27 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 because the said information, at times may be sensitive from security perspective and this concern can never be disregarded. The Commission is sentient that under the provisions of the RTI Act, disclosure of information is a rule and non-disclosure is an exception. Hence, the Commission is of a considered opinion that the proof of citizenship is not required from an information seeker as a matter of principle but there are certain exceptional circumstances, as in the case of the Appellant, in which the PIO/CPIO is at liberty to seek proof of citizenship. In view of the detailed observations and analysis, the instant Second Appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 01.03.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 28 of 29 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637412 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority, Mormugao Port Trust, Administrative Office, Headland, Sada, Goa - 403804
2. The Central Public Information Officer, Mormugao Port Trust, Administrative Office, Headland, Sada, Goa - 403804
3. Shri Samir Sardana Page 29 of 29