Central Information Commission
Tejinder Singh vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 2 March, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/106505/C
CIC/UTOJK/C/2020/163210
CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/162987
Shri Tejinder Singh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Chief Engineer EM & RE Wing
Supdt. Engineer EM & RE Wing
Executive Engineer EM & RE
Date of Hearing : 02.03.2021
Date of Decision : 02.03.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since issues raised in the RTI applications are similar and both the parties
are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed together for hearing and
disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2 nd Appeal
No. on received on
106505 19.09.2019 - 18.10.2019 - 07.02.2020
163210 19.09.2019 30.10.2019 18.10.2019 - 30.12.2019
162987 19.09.2019 - 18.10.2019 - 27.12.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/106505/C (2) CIC/UTOJK/C/2020/163210 (3) CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/162987 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated19.09.2019 seeking information on 19 points:-Page 1 of 5
Etc. The PIO, O/o the Chief Engineer, Maintt. & RE Wing, Jammu vide letter dated 03.10.2019 transferred the RTI application to PIO, O/o the Superintending Engineer, EM&RE Circle and PIO, O/o the Executive Engineer, EM&RE Division.
Subsequently, the Executive Engineer, EM&RE Division, Kathua vide letter dated 30.10.2019 furnished the information point-wise.
Having not received information from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.10.2019. The Appellant was called for hearing three times vide letters dated 10.12.2019, 13.12.2019 & 23.12.2019 but he did not appear before the First Appellate Authority and another date was fixed for hearing on 30.12.2019 at 11.30 AM.
However, subsequently the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Complainant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that no satisfactory information was provided in these matters by the O/o the Chief Engineer, Jammu and that the applications were incorrectly transferred to other departments.
The Respondent was represented by Shri Mohd Shafi, Executive Engineer, JKPDCL, Katwa and Shri Sanjay Puri, Assistant Executive Engineer, JKPDCL, Page 2 of 5 Jammu through video conference. Shri Shafi stated that initially the RTI application was transferred by O/o the Chief Engineer, Jammu vide letter dated 03.10.2019 to the PIO, O/o the Superintending Engineer, EM&RE Circle and PIO, O/o the Executive Engineer, EM&RE Division. Subsequently, point wise information was provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 30.10.2019 hence appropriate action was taken on the RTI application and there existed no ground for filing the instant Complaints. The Respondent further stated that the Complainant is in the habit of filing multiple RTI applications essentially related to his personal grievance which was causing disproportionate diversion of their limited resources.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that the instant matters are complaints filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a malafide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIC &Anr vs State of Manipur and Anr Civil Appeal No 10787- 10788 of 2011 decided on 12.12.2011, has laid down the principles pertaining to the scope of adjudication by the Commission on complaints filed u/s 18 vis a vis appeals under Section 19. The relevant extracts of the judgement are as under:
35..............Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information.
Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. ....................
37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other.
38. It may be that sometime in statute words are used by way of abundant caution. The same is not the position here. Here a completely different procedure has been enacted under Section 19. If the interpretation advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted in that case Section 19 will become unworkable and especially Section 19(8) will be rendered a surplusage. Such an interpretation is totally opposed to the fundamental canons of construction. ................
Page 3 of 542. Apart from that the procedure under Section 19 of the Act, when compared to Section 18, has several safeguards for protecting the interest of the person who has been refused the information he has sought. Section 19(5), in this connection, may be referred to. Section 19(5) puts the onus to justify the denial of request on the information officer. Therefore, it is for the officer to justify the denial. There is no such safeguard in Section 18. Apart from that the procedure under Section 19 is a time bound one but no limit is prescribed under Section 18. So out of the two procedures, between Section 18 and Section 19, the one under Section 19 is more beneficial to a person who has been denied access to information.
43. There is another aspect also. The procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure. A right of appeal is always a creature of statute. A right of appeal is a right of entering a superior forum for invoking its aid and interposition to correct errors of the inferior forum. It is a very valuable right. Therefore, when the statute confers such a right of appeal that must be exercised by a person who is aggrieved by reason of refusal to be furnished with the information."
Taking into consideration the documents available on record and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that appropriate action has been taken by the Respondent in the instant matter and that no malafide intent can be attributed on the conduct of the CPIO hence no further intervention of the Commission u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 is warranted.
The Commission also observes that the Complainant/ Appellant has resorted to filing multiple RTI applications on issues which essentially pertain to his personal grievance.
The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries(AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed "....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. ...."
The Commission also observes that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and not to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more Page 4 of 5 parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Thus, based on the above mentioned observations, the Commission advises the Complainant to abstain from filing multiple RTI applications on similar issues essentially related to redressal of his grievances.
With the above observations, the instant Complaints stand dismissed accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5