Central Information Commission
Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Delhi Police on 10 July, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/623709
Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, ... /Appellant
अपीलकता
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/ADCP-I, Delhi Police, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
North West District, Ashok Vihar,
Delhi - 110052
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2020 and 23.06.2020
Date of Interim Decision : 27.05.2020
Date of Final Decision: : 10.07.2020
Through: Shri Hemant,
Sub-Inspector present through
audio conference
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.04.2018
PIO replied on : 10.05.2018
First Appeal filed on : 16.05.2018
First Appellate Order on : 12.06.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint dated : 17.06.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.04.2018 seeking information on the following five points:
1. Inner case dairy one copy is with ACP Shalimar Bagh and Second copy is with Prosecution Branch of Delhi Police. Copy submitted in Court (Inner case dairy) is not clear/readable and does not display number printed on the Inner case diary.Page 1 of 13
A. Kindly provide certified copy of Inner case diary (containing number printed on Inner case diary) related to PS Shalimar - related FIR number 2012-189 dated 26/7/2012 B. Kindly provide typed inner case diary as copy submitted in Court are not readable/ clear.
2. Kindly provide detail of Police Officer /Staff/ other persons following information. Delhi Police can collect this information U/s 2 (f) of RTI Act from these Telecom Companies and individuals.
A. Kindly provide Phone number(with name of their service provider - Telecom Company in July 2012) SI Mr Sanjay Kumar, , PSI Mr Vijay Dahiya( P 5126), Cons. Mr Devender (No 1373/NW PIS 28011576) , Lady Const Miss Kamlesh (No 1341/NW-PIS 28050017). B. Kindly provide Phone number(with name of their service provider - Telecom Company in July 2012) of private persons involved in raid to undersigned flat Mr Shikhil Nagpal ( 9999991534), Mr Nagesh Nagpal, Mr Parmeshwar Nagpal, Mr. Sahil Nagpal, Mr. Baljeet Khanna , Mr Rakesh Kumar Gupta(9811079436-Vodafone) - C. Kindly provide call records / location records of phone above mentioned in Point 2(a) and (b) for 26/7/2012 to 28/7/2012. D. Kindly provide call records / location records of phone For Mr. Baljeet Khanna and Mr Nagesh Nagpal above mentioned in Point 2(a) and (b) for 1/3/2012 to till date.
3. A. Kindly provide work done/assigned by/to SI Mr Sanjay Kumar, PSI Mr Vijay Dahiya( P 5126), Cons. Mr Devender (No 1373/NW PIS 28011576) , Lady Const Miss Kamlesh ( No 1341/NW-PIS 28050017)during 26/7/2012 to 29/7/2012 B. Kindly Provide list of officer/ staff assigned to each police Van during 26/7/2012 to 27/7/2012 by Shalimar Bagh PS. This information should be provide vehicle wise.
C. Kindly provide details of person arrested 26/7/2012 to 27/7/2012 by Shalimar Bagh PS and all record related to them.
4. Kindly provide copy of document (related to point 1 to 3) requested at the time of inspection.
5. Kindly provide copy of document (related to point 1 to 3) available with DCP office Dist. North West Delhi requested at the time of inspection.
Page 2 of 13(Queries are Verbatim) The PIO/ADCP-I furnished a point wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 10.05.2018.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.05.2018 whereupon the FAA observed as under:
"... it has been found that the PIO/NWD, Delhi vide letter dated 10.05.2018 has already been given the complete and correct available information to the appellant in response to his RTI application. Further regarding Point No. 1(A) and (B) of appellant's RTI application, it is informed that case FIR No. 189/2012, u/s 384/285 IPC, dated 26.07.2010, PS Shalimar Bagh is pending trial in Hon'ble Rohini Court as per report of I/c VRK/Sub Division, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Hence, the requisite information/document cannot be provided to the appellant u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act-2205 as it may impede the process of prosecution of offender. With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is accordingly disposed off."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 07.02.2020 wherein he has requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide information; direction to maintain records as per Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act; initiate penalty proceedings for not provided information.
He further stated that the instant matter was already heard by the previous Chief Information Commissioner on 08.11.2019 wherein an interim decision was passed stating as under:
"4. Due to paucity of time, the hearing in the matter could not be concluded. Therefore, the matter is adjourned and would be listed for hearing in due course. A fresh Notice of Hearing would be issued by the Commission.
5. Copy of the interim decision be provided free of cost to the parties."
Interim Decision:
Shri Hemant, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police informed the Bench through a phone call that he has been advised by the Doctor to undergo mandatory home quarantine in the wake of the pandemic, COVID-19 since one of his colleagues has tested positive.Page 3 of 13
The Appellant has agreed to a re-scheduling of the instant case.
In view of the above, the instant Second Appeal may be re-scheduled for hearing after the lockdown is lifted.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing (22.06.2020):
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 07.02.2020 wherein he has narrated the genesis for filing the instant RTI Application and the same is summarized as under:
1. Appellant has stated that the purpose of seeking the information sought in the present RTI Application is to prove that the Police is attempting to destroy his reputation.
2. Appellant alleges that the officials of Shalimar Bagh Police Station have fabricated the evidence written on case diary and that when he inspected the records after the issuance of the order from the Commission vide File No. CIC/VS/A/2014/001287/SB dated 11.09.2015, the said diary was missing.
3. Appellant further alleged that the Respondent has added certain papers into the case diary that too backdated. Narration of facts is reproduced verbatim as under:
a. Delhi Police had filed Charge Sheet in the Court on 7-3-2017 (in simple words investigation is over on 7-3-2017. Any exemption invocation of investigation is malafide after filing of case in Court.
b. Delhi Police file photocopy in the Court, therefore, the claim case is filed in Court is malafide (as all records are with Delhi Police). Court had given these papers to undersigned, but not readable, undersigned had sought typed inner diary document only (point 1 of RTI).
c. Point 2 and 3 and location detail by Phone data, work done by Police staff on that day etc. And denial of this information is malafide by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of RTI act because this information will proved every thing Delhi Police has stated in Court filed case is false and fabricated to destroyed undersigned reputation for which Delhi Police official had taken by Huge bribe. d. Accused has every right to defend. And records available with Delhi Police can not be denied.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the Respondent. He further stated that a coordinate Bench of the Commission vide File No. CIC/VS/A/2014/001287/SB dated 11.09.2015 decided in his favour and till date the order of the same has not been complied with by the Respondent.Page 4 of 13
He further stated that he had sought details of total number of arrested persons on 26.07.2012 and 27.07.2012 by Shalimar Bagh PS which has not been provided to him till date. He added that the details of arrestee and roznamcha are generally available with the Respondent since it is a digital copy.
In addition, the Appellant stated that the information received on point no. 1 of the RTI Application is illegible and claimed that despite seeking a typed copy, PIO has failed to provide the same to the Appellant. He pointed out that the FAA has overruled the stand taken by the PIO on information sought at point nos. 1(A) and 1(B) of the RTI Application and denied the same under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act since the FIR no. 189/2012 under Section 384/385 of IPC, dated 26.07.2012, PS Shalimar Bagh was pending trial in Hon'ble Rohini Court as per report of I/c VRK/Sub Division, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, which is irrelevant. Further, Appellant stated that on information sought at point nos. 2(A) to 2(D) of the RTI Application, PIO denied parting with information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which is incorrect and illegal. On point no. 3 of the RTI Application, Appellant claimed that a coordinate Bench was pleased to direct the Respondent to provide information in an earlier decision vide File no. CIC/VS/A/2014/001287-SB, whereas in the instant case, Respondent has stated that the relevant record was destroyed vide Order no. 18345- 18425/HAR Br./NWD dated 29.08.2017. He claimed that this information is available with the Respondent and was deliberately not providing the same to him, for the reasons best known to them. He further pressed that the information sought at point no.3(C) of the RTI Application should have been maintained in accordance with Section 4 of the RTI Act. Appellant emphasised that the case diary in question is maintained in the format of outer and inner case diaries which contains statements of officers and other pivotal details which can be provided to any/every individual upon request, whereas the documents referred/claimed by the Respondent in their reply dated 10.05.2018 pertains to outer case diary, which has not been sought in the instant RTI Application and avowed that as an Accused he has a right to seek that copy under RTI.
Respondent is represented by Shri Hemant, Sub-Inspector through audio conference. He submitted that a point-wise reply was provided to the Appellant in response to his RTI Application vide letter dated 10.05.2018. He further submitted that the Appellant is an Accused and all the documents pertaining to FIR no. 189/2012 have been submitted to the Court and that no records are available with them. He also submitted that there may be a possibility that the arrest memo was issued on 26.07.2012 and the actual arrest of the Appellant was made on 27.07.2012. He added that the Appellant can obtain a copy of the relevant records from the concerned Court. Further, a reference was made to Section 172(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Shri Hemant explained that the relevant diary of proceedings in investigation cannot be shared either with the Accused or his Agents since it is a judicial record and Page 5 of 13 the same has been submitted to the Court. He further clarified on information sought at point no. 3 of the RTI Application that the deployment register was maintained as on the date of occurrence of the incident and the same was destroyed as per the Record Retention Schedule.
Shri Hemant stated that the case is pending trial since 2017. Upon being asked as to why the Respondent took 5 years in initiating the matter to the jurisdictional Court, he stated that since the FIR no. 189/2012 pertained to extortion, sufficient time was devoted in investigating the matter. He further stated that a press release dated 27.07.2012 titled "Extortionist Arrested" was issued by Dr. P. Karunakaran, IPS and Dy. Commissioner of Police, North-West District, Delhi which contains complete details of the incident, investigation made, details of Police team, profile of the Appellant/Accused and the recovery amount.
Appellant interjected to state that he has received a copy of few documents in connection with the instant case from the prosecution i.e., the opposite party. He further stated that the Commission has decided several cases on the same subject-matter and the directions given in each of the cases have not been complied with till date.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on records as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the Respondent has initially informed the Appellant that the information sought at point no. 1(A) and 1(B) of the RTI Application has been transferred to PIO, Rohini Court, Delhi for taking necessary action since a case was filed vide R/C No. 250.21.17 on 07.03.2017 whereas the First Appellate Authority has overruled the decision of the PIO and denied information on the aforesaid point under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It is relevant to state herein that the though the FAA has overruled the decision of the PIO, he has not substantiated as to how the process of the investigation will be impeded, in case the said information is provided to the Appellant. Further, Commission also observes that as per the arrest memo provided by the Appellant dated 26.07.2012, it has been categorically mentioned that the date of arrest is on 26.07.2012 whereas the Appellant is claiming that he was arrested on 27.07.2012.
Further, the Respondent has relied upon Section 172(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states:
Section 172: Diary of proceedings in investigation.- (1) Every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.Page 6 of 13
(2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.
(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall apply."
It is relevant to opine that Section 22 of the RTI Act overrides all other Laws/Rules, subject to certain conditions. Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 reads as under:
"Section 22: Act to have overriding effect.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."
However, as per the dictum of the Appellant during the proceedings of the hearing that he has filed several cases on the same subject-matter which the Commission has already adjudicated upon, the Registry of this Bench has searched for relevant records and found the following details:
Sl. No. Case/File Nos. Gist of information sought Date of decision 1 CIC/VS/A/2014/ Sought information on 7 points 11.09.2015 001287/SB pertaining to FIR no. 189/2012 dated 26.07.2012 filed at PS Shalimar Bagh.
2 CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/ Sought information on 4 points 18.10.2019
618363 pertaining to his medical examination
conducted by Babu Jagjivan Ram
Memorial Hospital, Jahangirpuri,
Delhi (which is directly linked to
FIR no. 189/2012)
3 CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/ Sought information on 8 points 29.11.2019
618364 pertaining to FIR no. 189/2012 dated
26.07.2012 filed at PS Shalimar Bagh
4 CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/ Sought information on 4 points 30.11.2019
621994 pertaining to the communications
received in PS Shalimar Bagh such as
reference numbers, correspondences
relating to FIR no. 189/2012 dated
26.07.2012 filed at PS Shalimar Bagh
Page 7 of 13
Commission deems it appropriate to quote relevant portion of all the orders from the aforesaid cases in the following manner:
CIC/VS/A/2014/001287/SB 6. The Commission heard the submission of both the parties and perused the record. It is correct that the inquiry is not yet over. However, what is relevant is whether mere pendency of an inquiry can be a ground for exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Delhi High Court in B.S. Mathur V. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court: W.P(C) 295/2011, decided on 03.06.2011 had considered the contention with regard to withholding information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and held as under:
"22....... The mere pendency of an investigation or inquiry is by itself not a sufficient justification for withholding information. It must be shown that the disclosure of the information sought would impede"
or even on a lesser threshold "hamper"" or interfere with" the investigation........"
7. The Commission notes that mere pendency of an inquiry is not a ground for withholding the information. The authority withholding the information has to show satisfactory reason as to why the disclosure of information would impede or hamper the process of investigation. However, the respondent has not been able to show how disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation.
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide information as sought by the complainant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/618363 6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the both parties and perusing the records, directs the respondent to file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that no records relating to information sought in point no.1 of the RTI application are available with respondent. Hence, no information can be provided to the appellant. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Page 8 of 137. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/618364 6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that an appropriate response has been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/621994 6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that an appropriate response has been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Nonetheless, Appellant had filed a non-compliance petition before the Commission vide letters dated 07.07.2016, 21.08.2016, 06.01.2019, 26.03.2019 and 10.05.2019 in connection with File No. CIC/VS/A/2014/001287/SB which was heard by a coordinate Bench on 21.10.2019 and disposed the matter in the following manner:
"...
4. The respondent, vide letter dated 03.09.2019, informed the Commission that in compliance with the order of the Commission dated 11.09.2015, the information sought for has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 10.11.2015.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after perusing the records, observes that the respondent has complied with the directions of the Commission. Hence, no further action is required in the matter. Accordingly, the matter is closed at the Commission's level.
6. With the above observations, the non-compliance complaint is disposed of..."Page 9 of 13
Commission further observes that the Appellant has filed a litany of written submissions in the instant matter, whereby he has questioned, belittled and challenged the veracity of the stand taken by the Respondent public authority as well as the Commission's disposal of File no. CIC/VS/A/2014/001287/SB. Moreover, it is of utmost importance to bring out the following elements in the instant case:
Res judicata: This Bench has noticed that apart from the instant RTI Application, Appellant has filed four other RTI Applications on the same subject-matter before the Respondent public authority, which has already been adjudicated by the Commission. Subsequently, the orders in the aforesaid four matters decided by a coordinate Bench has not been challenged in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for judicial review within the stipulated period and the same assumes finality, and identical information cannot be sought again from the public authority. Although, Right to Information Act, 2005 does not have any specific provision barring repeated RTI Applications for similar information like Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, the universal principle of civil justice 'res judicata' will certainly apply and repeated requests can be denied. In this regard, two Latin maxims form the basis of this Rule, they are:
a. 'interest republicae ut sit finis litium' = it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation; and b. 'nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem cause' = no man should be taxed twice over for the same cause.
In addition, the universal principle of civil justice also recognizes Constructive res judicata, which in the RTI context means when an Applicant uses an opportunity of obtaining information on a particular subject as per law, he is expected to seek all the related information on a particular subject as per law.
A Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of N.D.Qureshi vs. Union of India & Another, 2008 (13) DRJ 547, it has been observed as under:
"12. Moreover, from the above narrated facts, it would be apparent that the petitioner has been re-litigating for a considerable number of years. In our view on the principle of res judicata and re-litigation the petitioner is even barred from raising new pleas for the same old relief. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi and others, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 573 has held that it is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re-litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. This re- agitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that if a spurious claim is made in a case, it may also amount to an abuse of process of the court. In our view, frivolous or vexatious proceedings amount to an Page 10 of 13 abuse of the process of the court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless-like in the present case." [Emphasis supplied] Adverting to the supra, this Bench strongly denounces the approach of the Appellant in misusing the RTI Act. The Appellant appears to be doing so despite the express knowledge of the fact that he is pursuing a matter of no larger public interest, but his personal grievance. It is astonishing to note that the Respondent public authority is being unabashedly harassed by repeated filing of RTI Applications on the same subject, all in the name of seeking some or the other information pertaining to FIR no. 189/2012 dated 26.07.2012. A simple perusal of the queries in all the five RTI Applications (including the instant RTI Application) shows the mundane nature of information sought and even vindictive queries based in the context of different PIO replies. It is not clear as to what kind of information will satisfy the Appellant as it appears the only relief he is aiming to secure is by compelling the Respondent public authority to restore his reputation because of his arrest. Further, the Appellant's questioning the motive of the Respondent in not providing the information sought in the instant RTI Application is untenable.
The larger issue here that needs to be addressed is the repetitive nature of the RTI Applications filed by the Appellant and the motivated attempt at putting the Respondent public authority as well as the Commission to test. At this juncture, the Commission would like to mention that though the Right to Information is a fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used indiscriminately to satisfy one individual. In the present matter, it must be noted that the Appellant had filed five RTI Applications on the same subject matter and is filing a litany of written submissions and non-compliance petitions, which results in an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of time and resources being expended just to respond to him. The Appellant by repeatedly filing similar RTI Applications, written submissions and non- compliance petitions on the same subject with the Respondent public authority and the Commission, is wasting public resources.
The foregoing stance can be more so exemplified in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) v. Aditya Bandopadhyay [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"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. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary Page 11 of 13 relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). 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 prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 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 the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
Further, in the matter of Rajni Maindiratta v. Directorate of Education (North West - B), W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"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."
Commission concludes that, a composite reading of the preceding paragraphs clearly elucidates that the present Second Appeal is devoid of any merit as the same issue has been dealt with in a multitude of cases. Similarly, the Respondent public authority has also spent considerable time and resources in responding to the Appellant's RTI Applications. Moreover, it is deemed appropriate that the Commission as well as the public authority are at liberty to take recourse to the rationale of this order whenever the same subject matter is raised by the Appellant in any future RTI Applications and/or Page 12 of 13 Appeals. The Appellant is further advised not to make a mockery of the spirit of the RTI Act by unnecessarily flooding the public authority with RTI Applications on the same matter not involving any larger public interest. It is abundantly clear that any number of RTI Applications on the same issue will not alter the information that was held and disseminated by the Respondents.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant Second Appeal is dismissed.
वाई. के . िस हा) वाई.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई िस हा
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514
Page 13 of 13