Central Information Commission
Rajeev Agarwal vs Debts Recovery Tribunal, Triveni ... on 30 March, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-110066, website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001566, No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001945, No. CIC/
SA/A/2015/001977, No. CIC/MP/A/2015/002135, No. CIC/MP/A/2015/002329, No.
CIC/MP/A/2016/000192, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000193, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000572,
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000818, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000855
Appellant : Shri Rajeev Agrawal, Allahabad
Public Authority : Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad
Date of Hearing : 20th December, 2016
Date of Decision : 22nd March, 2017
Present
Appellant : Not Present
Respondent : Shri C.L. Agarwal, Assistant Registrar & CPIO and
Shri S.K. Tripathi, Registrar - at CIC
ORDER
The above-mentioned ten cases of Shri Rajeev Agrawal, the appellant in these matters, were heard. The appellant was not present for the hearing in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. The respondents were heard and decision taken on the basis of available record and the submissions put forward by the respondents.
1. No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001566 1.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 10.4.2015, sought to know as to whether the information given by AGM, SBI in public notice dated 12.09.2014 was true or the affidavit filed by the Ld. Counsel of the bank before the Court.
1.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 15.5.2015, intimated that the information sought by the appellant was a clarification which did not fall under the purview of RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority vide letter dated 24.5.2015 and the FAA, vide order dated 16.6.2015, upheld the decision of the CPIO stating that since the appellant had sought clarification on some documents, it did not fall under the definition of information. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission..
1.3 The matter was heard by the Commission The respondents stated that the appellant sought clarifications in respect of two documents, i.e. the public notice and the affidavit filed in the court and sought the views of the respondent authority to find out which were of these two were correct. The interpretations/clarifications/opinions sought by the appellant are not covered under the RTI Act. Therefore, they had explained this position to the appellant.
1.4 The Commission holds that the respondent authority is not mandated to provide their views or clarifications as required by the appellant but to provide information in the form it is available, keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view. The clarification sought by the appellant is not covered under the definition of information as provided u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
2. No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001945 2.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 30.6.2015, sought information as to which order of the High Court would be applicable in respect of payment of court fees while filing petitions in DRT, Allahabad under section 30 of the RDDBF Act., amount of court fee to be paid by the defendants, third parties while filing the original suit and appeal in DRT Allahabad under section 30 of RDDBFI Act, through 3 points.
2.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 6.7.2015, intimated that filing appeals filed u/s 30 of RDDBFI Act, 1993 was a judicial process under the Act and the information on court fees was available in the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority vide letter dated 18.7.15 and the FAA, vide order dated 18.8.2015, held that the clarifications sought by the appellant on the High Court orders could not be given under the RTI Act. Further, the DRT Allahabad was taking the court fee from the third parties in terms of order passed by High Court of Allahabad in WP No. 70348/2006. The court fee could be more or less on the valuation of the case. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission.
2.3 The respondents stated that the FAA had provided a clear response to the appellant mentioning the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court's order in WP No. 70348/ 2006 regarding the court fee to be taken from the third party. They could not provide any clarification on the orders of the Hon'ble court.
2.4 On hearing the respondents and going through the available record, the Commission finds that the respondent authority had provided a clear response in the matter. They are not supposed to give clarifications or interpretations on the issues raised by the various appellants under the RTI Act. The Commission finds no infirmity in the FAA's order and upholds his decision. The appeal is disposed of.
3. No. CIC/SA/A/2015/001977/MP 3.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 4.8.2015, sought current status of the four 0appeals filed by him under section 30(1) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 and the action taken by the Registrar on his letters sent vide ticket no. EU235586825IN, through two points.
3.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 2.9.2015, intimated that the information sought by the appellant related to the judicial proceedings of the Tribunal and could be obtained under the RDDBFI Act, 1993 and the rules framed in DRT Procedure Rules 1993. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority vide letter dated 9.9.2015. The FAA, vide order dated 6.10.2015, upheld the decision of the CPIO. Not quite satisfied, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission.
3.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant was resorting to making RTI applications to seek the information that could only be provided following the DRT Rules and Act in question. The appellant could find the status of the appeals filed by him by following the DRT procedures.
3.4 On hearing the respondents and going through the available records, the Commission upholds the decision of the FAA with regard to point 1 of the RTI application where the appellant had sought the present status of his four appeals. As regards point no. 2, where the appellant sought the action taken by the Registrar on his letters, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the information regarding action taken on the appellant's letters, if any, within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
4. No. CIC/MP/A/2015/002135 4.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 24.7.2015, sought information on the fee to be paid by the third party and the complainants on the appeal filed by them in the DRT Allahabad, as per revised DRT Procedure Rules under section 30 of RDDBFI Act, 1993.
4.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 24.8.2015, intimated that from the introduction to the RTI application given by the appellant it was apparent that he was aware of the DRT Procedure Rules and had the documents and he was trying to resolve his issues. The CPIO, however, provided the information on the fee to be paid in appeal against the recovery officer's order while adding that the CPIO was not supposed to give his own view. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority vide letter dated 28.8.2015, who upheld the decision of the CPIO clarifying that the CPIO was not supposed to create information or resolve the issues raised before him by the appellant or reply to hypothetical questions placed before him. Not satisfied, the appellant approached the Commission.
4.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided the information that was available with them and that the appellant was trying to seek clarifications. They were not obligated under the RTI Act to provide interpretation and clarifications sought by the appellant.
4.4 The Commission finds that the respondent authority has appropriately responded in the matter and upholds the FAA's decision. The appeal is disposed of.
5. No. CIC/MP/A/2015/002329 5.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 5.9.2015, sought clarification on the difference of the amount of court fees received from the applicants in the 109 appeals as per information provided vide letter No. 2060/DRT/Alld/Admin/731- CPIO and the court fees supposed to be received as per rules.
5.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 5.10.2015, stated that under RTI Act, 2005 CPIO cannot give his personal opinion/clarification sought by the applicant and also can not reply to hypothetical questions. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority vide letter dated 16.10.2015. The FAA, vide order dated 6.11.2015, upheld the decision of the CPIO. Not quite satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission.
5.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant wanted clarification with regard to the court fee that was received and whether it was payable as per rules. The information sought was available in the rules and they were not supposed to provide clarification sought by the appellant. 5.4 The Commission observes that the appellant had sought similar information in another RTI application dated 24.7.2015. He is trying to seek clarifications in the garb of information. The respondent authority is not mandated to give views/ clarifications/interpretation/opinion under the RTI Act, 2005 but provide information available with it or under its control while keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view. The Commission upholds the FAA's decision. The appeal is disposed of.
6. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000192 6.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 21.8.2015, sought information as to in whose name the domestic gas cylinder connection kept in the premises of DRT, Allahabad was registered; who received the subsidy on the cylinder being provided by the Govt. of India; what were the safety measures in case of a mishap and the propriety in keeping the domestic gas cylinder in the Tribunal's office, through 4 points. He had attached a photograph of cylinder kept in the premises of DRT on which the information had been sought for.
6.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 23.9.2015, informed the applicant that he had not provided the source of the dim photograph attached with the RTI application and informed that no registered or unregistered domestic gas cylinder was kept in the premises of DRT Allahabad. Not quite satisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority vide letter dated 5.10.2015. The FAA, vide letter dated 4.11.2015, upheld the decision of the CPIO. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission.
6.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant had been filing a number of RTI applications in which the background material provided in the RTI application was imaginary at times and the appellant raised questions against that background. A lot of time was wasted in disposing those RTI applications and the first appeals filed on the replies of CPIO. In the present case, however, no registered or unregistered gas cylinder was kept, in the DRT, therefore, no information as sought by the appellant is available with them.
6.4 The Commission, on hearing the respondents and going through the available records, finds that the respondent authority has provided an appropriate reply and upholds the decisions of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
7. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000193 7.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 5.5.2015, sought the authenticated copy of sale deed mortgaged to the bank that had been filed on 10.1.2006 in DRC No. 209/2000 as stated by the Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank as per the direction of the court. He had also applied under relevant provisions of RDDBFI Act to obtain this copy but was denied by the clerk.
7.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 5.6.2015, informed the appellant that no such document was filed by the bank on 10.1.2006 while reproducing the relevant part of the order sheet of that date. The CPIO also quoted out of the subsequent order sheet dated 14.2.2006 according to which the bank's counsel sought time to file authenticated copy and reiterated that no such copy was filed on that date. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority. The FAA, vide order dated 4.7.2015, held that the documents sought by the appellant were held in the record and therefore could not be provided. Not quite satisfied, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission stating that even after the lapsation of a long time, he had not received the desired documents.
7.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant desired to obtain a copy of document which was not available with DRT. The CPIO had provided excerpts from the document sheet stating that no such document sought by the appellant was available with them. Therefore, they had intimated their inability to provide the same.
7.4 The Commission observed that the respondent authority had clearly provided the information that was existing and available with them. In this case, the documents sought by the appellant were not available with them and, therefore, they could not provide a copy of that document. The Commission does not find any reason to doubt the respondent authority and upholds the FAA's decision. The appeal is disposed of.
8. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000572 8.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 24.10.2015, sought information already asked for in earlier RTI application dated 7.10.2014 referring to an order of the Commission in case no. CIC/MP/A/2015/000443. In the RTI application dated 7.10.2014 the appellant had sought information as to whether valuation report dated 8.4.2013 submitted by Shri Umesh Kumar in DRC no. 209/2000 had been withdrawn or not.
8.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 27.11.2015, informed the appellant that the information sought had been already provided. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority. The FAA, vide order dated 6.1.2016, upheld the decision of the CPIO. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission seeking the information asked for in his RTI application.
8.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had already responded to the RTI application seeking this information earlier and had intimated this position to the appellant. His appeal in that case was also heard and decided and they had intimated the same position to the appellant in the present RTI application.
8.4 The Commission observes that the respondent authority should have provided the copy of their earlier reply to the appellant as it had been referred to in the CPIO's and FAA's response. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to send a copy of the response to the appellant's earlier RTI application dated 7.10.2014 in which similar information was sought and provided, within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
9. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000818 9.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 1.12.2015, sought copy of complaint made against Shri Neeraj working in DRT, Allahabad in the past and action taken on the complaint, through 2 points.
9.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 15.1.2016, denied the information under 8(1)(d) being a third party information. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority vide letter dated 24.1.2016. The FAA, vide order dated 3.3.2016, upheld the decision of the CPIO stating that the information pertained to the third party and the third party had not given his consent for the same. Not satisfied, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission.
9.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant sought copy of complaint filed against Shri Neeraj, an employee in their office. Shri Neeraj had requested not to divulge any information relating to him to the appellant and, therefore, they had denied the information 9.4 The Commission observes that the appellant had sought third party information. The action of the respondents in not providing the copy of the complaint/s, if any, available was appropriate. As per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, "information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual..." need not be provided. No larger public interest has been claimed by the appellant.
9.5 The Commission, therefore, finds no infirmity in denial of information in the present case. The appeal is disposed of.
10. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000855 10.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 1.12.2015, sought information on the post held by Shri Neeraj in DRT, Allahabad and also the room or the chair identified for seating him, through 2 points.
10.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 7.1.2015, intimated that Shri Neeraj was posted as Process Server (MTS) and his seating place depended on the work carried out by him. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that Shri Neeraj had misbehaved with him and the CPIO had given him incorrect information to protect Shri Neeraj and requested for the information sought by him. The FAA concurred with the response given by the CPIO mentioning that the CPIO had not provided him information on the room/chair identified for Shri Neeraj as no such information was available. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission as he had not received the desired information even though it was available with the CPIO.
10.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that since no information was available on records regarding the seating place/room/chair for Shri Neeraj, they could not provide the same to the appellant. Shri Neeraj's seating place depended on the work allocated to him at a given time.
10.4 On hearing the respondents and going through the available record, the Commission finds that the respondent authority has provided information as available in the matter to the appellant. They are not supposed to create information to satisfy the desire of the information seeker. The Commission upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
11. The appellant has been making repeated applications on the same/similar issues, modifying language here and there, resulting in avoidable increase in work of the public authority who could utilise the same time for serving their customers better. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay has observed as under:
"37. .....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, tranquillity 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".
12. The appellant is advised to use the rights available to him under the RTI Act with full responsibility in future so as not to overburden the public authority with frivolous and vexatious RTI applications which impinge on the scarce resources of the public authority and use the cherished right given in the RTI Act, 2005 in a diligent manner so as to enable the public authority to use its time and resources for providing information expeditiously and efficiently. In view of the above, the appellant is advised to refrain from filing repeated RTI applications on the similar issue.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy. Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Debt Recovery Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, 9/2-A, Panna Lal Road, 9/2-A, Panna Lal Road, Allahabad - 211 002 (UP). Allahabad - 211 002 (UP).
Shri Rajeev Agarwal, 268/4, Riwa Road, Maheva, Allahabad - 211 007.