Central Information Commission
Shiva Ram vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 11 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2025/618232
Shri Shiva Ram ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Date of Hearing : 09.07.2025
Date of Decision : 09.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.11.2024
PIO replied on : 16.12.2024
First Appeal filed on : 13.12.2024
First Appellate Order on : 22.01.2025
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.11.2024 seeking information on following points:-
1. "Please arrange to provide certify copy of meeting order notice issued by Circle office, Jaipur for meeting at Banswara on dated 26 Nov 2015 attended by Shri O.P. Gupta the then Sr.GM(S&M) and then CGMT Rajasthan Telecom Circle, Jaipur ,Shri Sharwan Kumar the then GMTD Udaipur, Shri Jitendra Kumar Dayal the then DGM Udaipur ,Shri RK Jain the then DE (A&P) office of GMTD Banswara Shri Sumeet Doshi then then DE (R&T)office of GMTD Banswara and other officers officials ,Franchisees others of Banswara SSA ,Udaipur SSA and circle office Jaipur.
2.Please arrange to provide certify copy of meeting minutes for dated 26 Nov 2015 as per point number 1.
3.Please arrange to provide details of complaints ,written complaint etc lodged by the then Honourable MLA Kushalgarh of Banswara district against me to the then worthy CGMT BSNL Jaipur in the month of Nov2015. 4 Please arrange to provide certify notesheet approval for point number 3."
The CPIO & DGM (Operation), Banswara vide letter dated 16.12.2024 replied as under:-
"1. Not available in this office.
2. Not available in this office.
3. Already replied vide:
Page 1 A. Point no 05 of this office letter no GMTD-BSW/RTI Act-05/2020-21/15 dated 27.05.2020 in reply of your RTI Application No BSNRJ/R/E/20/00057. B. Point no 03 of this office letter no GMTD-BSW/RTI Act-05/2020-21/83 dated 26.10.2020 in in reply of your RTI Application No BSNRJ/R/E/20/00201/1.
C. Point No 01 of this office letter no GMTD-BSW/RTI Act-05/2020-21/ dated 26.11.2020 in reply of your off line RTI request dated 09.11.2020 addressed to CPIO, Circle Office, Jaipur.
4. Please refer point no. 03."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2024. The FAA vide order dated 22.01.2025 stated as under:-
".......it is submitted that Reply of your RTI request number BSNRJ/R/E/24/00192 has already been replied by DGM Banswara office vide letter no RJUPRD-41/16(11)/1/2022-Banswara dated 16.12.2024. Further it is submitted that Investigation in your case was done in year 2015 and Memorandum/charge sheet was served to you and Final order in your case was ordered by then disciplinary Authority. The appeal has been disposed accordingly."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Sumit Doshi, DGM The submissions of both the parties were heard. The CPIO in his oral submissions categorically stated that all the information which was available with the department has already been provided to the Appellant. However, despite of having received complete information, the Appellant has been repeatedly filing the RTI application on the same subject matter. The CPIO submitted that Appellant is misusing the RTI with the intention to harass the Organization.
Decision:
Perusal of records reveals that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act from available official records, has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. No legal infirmity is found in the response furnished by the Respondent.
While deciding the present Appeal, the Commission noted that the Appellant has been filing multiple RTI applications on the same subject matter, despite of having provided with the information sought. This behaviour is indicative of a vexatious and frivolous approach to the RTI Act. The RTI Act is intended to promote transparency and accountability, not to harass or intimidate public authorities.
The Commission noted that vexatious litigation and misuse of RTI Act has been discussed in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Page 2 Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] wherein it has been 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 Considering the adverse impact of unmanageable amount of queries, the Apex Court in a vital decision The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336) has categorically cautioned thus:
"...The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. ... The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19 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 include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use.."
Emphasis supplied In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...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 interest. ...................................
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 Page 3 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 Page 6 of 6 of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties..."
Emphasis supplied In the light of the aforementioned discussion and in view of the fact that response sent by the PIO is found legally appropriate, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
Further, the Appellant is advised to refrain from filing multiple and repetitive RTI applications on the same subject matter. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)