Central Information Commission
Kamal Dhingra vs Ministry Of Science & Technology on 15 June, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/MOSAT/A/2022/644049 +
CIC/MOSAT/A/2022/644285
In the matter of
Kamal Dhingra
... Appellant
VS
1. CPIO
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research,
Anusandhan Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110001
2. CPIO
Human Resource Development Group,
CSIR
CSIR Complex, Library Avenue,
Pusa, New Delhi - 110012
... Respondents
File No. : 644049 644285
RTI application filed on : 20/06/2022 24/06/2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record 21/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 21/07/2022 23/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 08/08/2022 - not 10/08/2022
on record
Second Appeal filed on : 12/08/2022 13/08/2022
Date of Hearing : 15/06/2023 15/06/2023
Date of Decision : 15/06/2023 15/06/2023
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Vandana Digvijay Singh, Under Secretary and CPIO CSIR Hqrs and CPIO, present over VC at CIC 1 Information Sought:
File no.: CIC/MOSAT/A/2022/644049 The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Total expenditure incurred on contingency from the year 2010 to 2018 in all approved schemes of EMR-2 Division. Provide receipts of all Govt. fund expenditure done on contingency. Provide the scheme year, name of principal investigator, file no., contingency amount passed, receipt number of expenditure spent on contingency. The receipt provided should have full details of the expenditure and the names of items on which expenditure has been done.
2. Total expenditure done by CSIR in all schemes of EMR-2 division in the year 2005. Provide details of expenditure in each scheme in the year 2005 like name of scheme, name of PI, file no.
3. Provide reason for not taking receipts of Govt. fund expenditure. Provide copy of approval of not taking receipts of Govt. fund expenditure.
4. And other related information.
File no.: CIC/MOSAT/A/2022/644285 The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Principal PS/PS cadre is not handling any financial matters, no secret matters, no public dealing. What is the benefit to CSIR to transfer PS cadre thereby incurring crore of rupees of Govt. Expenditure. Justify the expenditure by giving full details.
2. CSIR issued Order No. 3-4(c)/2021-E.1 dated 30.12.21 transferring Shri Satish Kumar, PPS, CSIO to Delhi and Shri Kamal Dhingra, PPS from Delhi to CSIO (same posts) showing public interest. Provide the details how CSIR Hqrs established public interest in the said Order?
3. CSIR issued OM No. 8(3269)/2022-E.III. Cx. dated 09.06.22 relieving Shri Kamal Dhingra, PPS from CSIR Complex w.e.f. 10th June, 22 (A/N) without allowing him to pay his Govt. dues. The blank no demand proforma was provided on 10.6.22 and relieving order issued on the same day on 10.06.22.
No TA is paid to come back and deposit Govt. dues or get No Demand certificate. Provide Govt. orders under which a Govt. servant can be relieved from an office without a no demand certificate. Provide a copy of the order in which TA is paid by the Govt. to come back and deposit Govt. dues.
4. And other related information.
2Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply on points no. 9,10 and 11 in respect of case no. 644049. He also contested point no. 1 of the RTI application related to case no. 644285 and stated that reasons for administrative decisions/quasi judicial decisions should be provided to the affected person. On a perusal of the query, the information sought was found to be in the form of seeking answers and not covered within the ambit of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The CPIO vide written submissions dated 09.06.2023 submitted that the RTI application dated 20.06.2022 in respect of case no. 644049 was replied to on 19.07.2022 via e-mail and the applicant was informed to wait for the reply to be given by the custodian. She further submitted that the concerned custodian had not replied with the timeline. However, the CPIO had provided a copy of the reply of the FAA to the applicant on 08.08.2022.
It was noted that points 8-11 were replied to again as the same were contested in the second appeal, so, the CPIO was asked to explain whether a complete reply was given in respect of case no. 644049, to which she answered in the affirmative.
The CPIO vide written submissions dated 09.06.2023 submitted that the RTI application dated 24.06.2022 in respect of case no. 644285 was replied to on 21.07.2022. However, as in the second appeal the appellant had contested points 1-3,5-9, 14 and 15 she explained that the custodian had provided information as per the availability of records. Observations:
It is relevant to mention here that previously on 18.05.2023, 12 cases of the same appellant were heard and disposed of. The series of RTI applications disposed of on that day and the RTI applications pending adjudication, which were fixed today for hearing shows that the appellant is asking for all and sundry information from the department with a motive to harass the public authority.
It is noteworthy to recall the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in its decision dated 21.09.2021 in the matter of La Fin Financial Services Private Ltd vs Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd while deciding a frivolous application by a plaintiff had observed as under:
"19. Because this is clearly a vexatious and mischievous proceeding that has unnecessarily wasted the Court's time, I can 3 think of no reason to withhold an order of costs against the Plaintiffs. The quantum of costs cannot be trivial. Amended Section 35 clearly intends the power of ordering costs to be used as a deterrent to prevent parties from making such frivolous applications. It would be meaningless to order a paltry amount. Plaintiffs such as this one will understand that Courts are not playgrounds, and litigation is not a pastime.
20. There will, therefore, be an order of costs against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant to be paid within two weeks from today in the amount of Rs.25 lakhs. If not paid in that time, the costs will carry interest at 9% per annum, and the Defendant is entitled to put this order into execution against the Plaintiff for recovery of these costs. "
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the appellant is advised to refrain from filing any repeated/frivolous RTI applications. The CPIO shall send a copy of the written submissions dated 09.06.2023 to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order which addresses his appeal no. 644049.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन सरना) सरना सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4