Central Information Commission
Saroj Kumar Mishra vs National Aluminium Company Ltd. on 26 July, 2024
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/NALCO/A/2023/629273
Shri Saroj Kumar Mishra ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO, National Aluminium Company Ltd. ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.07.2024
Date of Decision : 24.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.04.2023
PIO replied on : 09.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 16.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 07.06.2023
2 Appeal/complaint admitted on
nd : 15.06.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.04.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1. "Please state whether any consultation with Reporting Officer or Reviewing Officers have taken place by the Committee of Directors for consideration of applicant's grievance representation dated 23.01.2023 against AAR 2021-22. If yes, please provide their views/opinion on the points raised by applicant in his grievance representation dated 23.01.2023.
2. Please state whether applicant's grievance representation dated 23.01.2023 was circulated among the Committee of Directors before taking up of the interview on 13.02.2023. If yes, please provide the date on which it was circulated. Please also provide the way it was circulated (it may be noted that soft copy of applicant's grievance representation was sent over e-mail on 23.01.2023 to the dealing official in Corporate Office in compliance to their circular dated 12.01.2023).
3. Whether Reporting Officer or any higher officer has submitted/commented any contrary opinion on the issues while forwarding applicant's grievance application dated 23.01.2023.
Page 1 of 44. Please provide a copy of applicant's grievance representation (through proper channel copy) dated 23.01.2023 showing comments of officers during forwarding stage."
The CPIO and GM (IE & Compliance), National Aluminium Company Limited vide letter dated 09.05.2023 replied as under:-
Reply 1:- It may be noted here that as per Clause-2(f) of Right to Information Act, "Information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, 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. As per aforesaid definition, the information seeker can only seek documents as stated above and the public authority is not supposed to give any clarification, reason or answer. Since the information seeker has not sought any particular document, the same is denied.
Reply 2:- It may be noted here that as per Clause-2(f) of Right to Information Act, "Information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, 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. As per aforesaid definition, the information seeker can only seek documents as stated above and the public authority is not supposed to give any clarification, reason or answer. Since the information seeker has not sought any particular document, the same is denied.
Reply 3:- It may be noted here that as per Clause-2(f) of Right to Information Act, "Information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, 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. As per aforesaid definition, the information seeker can only seek documents as stated above and the public authority is not supposed to give any clarification, reason or answer. Since the information seeker has not sought any particular document, the same Is denied.
Reply 4:- Copy enclosed at Annexure-1. (Page: 1-4)."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 07.06.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 2 of 4
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. S.S. Bhuiyan, General Manager/CPIO, Mr. Saroj Kumar Patro, GM-HR, Mr. Chitranjan Bisoi, DGM(Admin), Mr. Amresh Mahuri, DGM(IT), Mr. Swaroop Taksande, AGM(Vigilance), Mr. Amitesh Manisigh, Sr. Manager(law) and Mr. Himanshu Rai, Manager Rajbhasha/APIO- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He further stated that the reply furnished by the CPIO is incomplete and misleading. He stated that the information sought has been wrongly denied by the PIO. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant from their official record. In addition, they submitted that the Appellant has been filing multiple RTI applications with no real intention of getting information but instead for harassing the officials. They averred hat the Appellant has filed approximately 118 RTI applications against NALCO in the past five years. They further stated that the Commission has passed decisions in 07 cases on 25.01.2023 and 09 cases on 12.07.2022 in the appeals filled by the same applicant. It is pertinent to mention here that due to the multiple, indiscriminate and repetitive filing of frivolous RTI applications by the Appellant, the officials of the respondent public authority are bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information instead of focusing on their core duties, leading to huge wastage of time and resources of public authority. They requested the Commission to declare the Appellant as a vexatious and frivolous RTI applicant.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been furnished by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority and permissible under the RTI Act can be provided to the information seeker.
Furthermore, records reveal that the Appellant has been filing series of multiple RTI applications and his numerous Second Appeals have already been heard and previously decided by this Commission. The Commission observes that the Appellant has undermined the spirit of the RTI Act by clogging the system with a barrage of RTI applications. Commission is of the considered opinion that the reply provided by the PIO is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In Page 3 of 4 the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
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 of 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)