Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 1 November, 2021
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागं गनाथमागग , मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
Varun Krishna .....अपीलकर्ाा/Appellant
...निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Administrative Officer/Shahadara -South Zone,
East Delhi Municipa lCorporation,
Administration Branch, Shahadara South Zone,
Zonal Office, Near Karkardooma Court,
Delhi-110032.
2.Public Information officer under RTI,
Nodal Public Information Officer-RTI,
Care Taker's Office-(RTI Section),
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
RTISection / Headquarters,
C-102, 1st Floor, 419--UdyogSadan,
Patparganj IndustrialArea, Delhi-110092.
3.Public Information officer under RTI,
O/o. Assistant Commissioner/HQ.,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
419, 1st Floor, Udyog Sadan,
Patparganj Industrial Area,
Delhi-110092.
...प्रतर्वािीगण/Respondents
Page 1 of 31
Date of Hearing :01.11.2021
Date of Decision :01.11.2021
Note: Since the matters, as annexed in Annexure-I, pertain to the same
Appellant/Complainant & Respondent Authority, and the issues involved
are similar in nature, therefore, the Commission proposes to adjudicate
them jointly through the present order.
सूचनाआयुक्त: श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/662742
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.04.2018
CPIO replied on : 23.01.2020
First appeal filed on : 02.01.2020
First Appellate Authority order : 30.01.2020
Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:Page 2 of 31
Having not received any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02-01-2020.
PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 23.01.2020, as under:
FAA, vide order dated 30.01.2020, held as under:
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not providedcorrect information to the Appellant.Page 3 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/662767 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.02.2018
CPIO replied on : 23.01.2020
First appeal filed on : 02.01.2020
First Appellate Authority order : 30.01.2020 Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Etc. Having not received any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02-01-2020.Page 4 of 31
PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 23.01.2020, as under:
FAA, vide order dated 30.01.2020, held as under:
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 5 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/663945 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.01.2018 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 02.01.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Etc. Having not received any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02-01-2020, which was also not adjudicated.
Written submission has been received from PIO, EDMC (HQ), vide letter dated 18.10.2021, as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not providedinformation to the Appellant.Page 6 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/662744 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.12.2017 CPIO replied on : 31.01.2018 First appeal filed on : 01.01.2020
First Appellate Authority order : 30.01.2020 Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 31.01.2018, as under:Page 7 of 31
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 01.01.2020.
FAA, vide order dated 30.01.2020, held as under:
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 8 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667777 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.04.2018 CPIO replied on : 20.01.2020 First appeal filed on : 05.02.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 20.01.2020, as under:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 05.02.2020.
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, and taken on record.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 9 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667786 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.01.2020 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 14.02.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Having not received any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02-01-2020, which was also not adjudicated.
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 28.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not providedinformation to the Appellant.Page 10 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667785 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.04.2018 CPIO replied on : 20.01.2020 First appeal filed on : 05.02.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 20.01.2020, as under:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05-02-2020.
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record. Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 11 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667780 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.04.2018 CPIO replied on : 20.01.2020 First appeal filed on : 05.02.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 20.01.2020, as under:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05-02-2020.
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record. Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 12 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667775 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.04.2018 CPIO replied on : 20.01.2020 First appeal filed on : 05.02.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:Page 13 of 31
PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 20.01.2020, as under:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05-02-2020.
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 14 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667779 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.04.2018 CPIO replied on : 20.01.2020 First appeal filed on : 05.02.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 20.01.2020, as under:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05-02-2020.
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record. Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 15 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667781 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.04.2018 CPIO replied on : 20.01.2020 First appeal filed on : 05.02.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 20.01.2020, as under:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05-02-2020.
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record. Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 16 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/C/2020/664759 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 25.06.2019 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Complaint received at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Complainant sought following information:
Dissatisfied that no information received from the PIO, Complainant filed the instant Complaint.
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 28.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record.
Grounds for Complaint The PIO has not providedinformation to the Complainant.Page 17 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667059 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.05.2018 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 28.01.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Dissatisfied that no information received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 28.01.2020, which was also not adjudicated.
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not providedinformation to the Appellant.Page 18 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/665948 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.04.2018 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 01.01.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Dissatisfied that no information received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 01.01.2020, which was also not adjudicated.
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant.Page 19 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/662755 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.02.2018 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 01.01.2020
First Appellate Authority order : 27.01.2020 Second Appealreceived at CIC : Nil Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Etc. Dissatisfied that no information received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 01.01.2020, which was also not adjudicated.Page 20 of 31
FAA, vide order dated 27.01.2020, held as under:
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not providedinformation to the Appellant.Page 21 of 31
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant/Complainant: Present on phone.
Respondent: (1) Mr. Prashant Bhardwaj, PIO, Admin. Officer, EDMC, Shahdara (South) Zone, present.
(2) Mr. Prabhat Kumar, PIO, ASO, EDMC (HQ), present.
Appellant/Complainant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO in either of the referred cases. He further stated that reply provided is either misleading, vague or deliberately withheld. He furthermore requested the Commission to take proper action against the erring PIO and furnish the requisite information to him.
PIO has submitted that reply has been provided in all the referred cases. He further submitted thatthey would comply with the directions of the Commission, if any in the instant matter.
Observations:
Commission remarked at the outset, based on the basis of submission of Respondent Authority during hearing and perusal of case records, that the Appellant is filing multiple RTI Applications for seeking information on his initially disposed RTI Applications.
It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality. However, adverting to cases such as this where the intention of the RTI Applicant is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that it is to only pester the public authorities; the notion of misuse of RTI Act well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments is relevant such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) &anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:Page 22 of 31
'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information andright to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands ofresponsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency andaccountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and allefforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information underclause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparencyand accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouragingcorruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information otherthan those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equalimportance and emphasis are given to other public interests (likeconfidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships,efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impracticaldemands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundryinformation (unrelated to transparency and accountability in thefunctioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would becounter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of theadministration and result in the executive getting bogged down with thenon- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. TheAct should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool toobstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace,tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted intoa tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do theirduty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of publicauthorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishinginformation to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.Thethreat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authoritiesunder the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authoritiesprioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.' Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 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 Page 23 of 31 and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs 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.' The aforesaid dicta essentially proves that the misuse of RTI Act is a well-recognized bane and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not after all absolute. Keeping this in view, Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future."
Now, having perused the instant 15 Second Appeals and complaints, this bench is of the considered opinion that these cases are merely grievanceof the Appellant/Complainant and in spree of the same he has filed numerous RTI Application with repeated queries by merely adding them to new queries raised in succeeding RTI Applications Page 24 of 31 Decision:
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/662742 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of their reply, along with the annexure, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days after the receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during the hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, no further action lies.
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/662767 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of their reply, along with the annexure, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days after the receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during the hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, no further action lies.
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/662744 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of their reply, along with the annexure, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days after the receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during the hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, no further action lies.Page 25 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667777 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of their reply, along with the annexure, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days after the receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during the hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, no further action lies.
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667781 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of their reply, along with the annexure, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days after the receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during the hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, no further action lies.
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667779 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of their reply, along with the annexure, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days after the receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during the hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, no further action lies.Page 26 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667775 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of their reply, along with the annexure, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days after the receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during the hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, no further action lies.
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667780 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of their reply, along with the annexure, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days after the receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during the hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, no further action lies.
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667785 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of their reply, along with the annexure, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days after the receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during the hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, no further action lies.Page 27 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667786 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of their reply, along with the annexure, vide letter dated 28.10.2021, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days after the receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during the hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, no further action lies CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/662755 & CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/663945 At the outset, in the above-mentioned matters, Commission expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the then PIO in not having provided reply on the RTI Application within time period stipulated under the RTI Act. Commission was unable to procure the name of the then PIO. Therefore, Commission directs then PIO through the present Nodal PIO to send his written submissions to justify as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of its provisions. In doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the omission, the then PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such other persons under intimation to the Commission and ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission. The said written submission of then PIO along with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The present Nodal PIO will ensure service of this order to then PIO Furthermore, in the above-mentioned matters, Commission directs the Nodal PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised point wise reply to the appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the Nodal PIO. In case relevant information, as sought in the instant RTI Application, pertains to some other Branch/Department, then the Nodal PIO should procure and provide the same to the Appellant. In doing so, PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the appellant. Moreover, Appellant has not availed opportunity to plead her case. No further action lies.Page 28 of 31
CIC/EMCDS/C/2020/664759 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of their reply, along with the annexure, vide letter dated 28.10.2021, to the Complainant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days after the receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during the hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished to the Complainant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, in absence of malafide intention of the PIO, no further action lies.
CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/665948 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of their reply, along with the annexure, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days after the receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during the hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, no further action lies CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667059 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of their reply, along with the annexure, vide letter dated 23.10.2021, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days after the receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during the hearing, observes that appropriate reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, no further action lies The instant above-mentioned matters are disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya(हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Page 29 of 31 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानितसत्यानितप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Copy to be served through present Nodal PIO to:
Then PIO, Nodal Public Information Officer-RTI, Care Taker's Office-(RTISection), East Delhi Municipal Corporation, RTI Section / Headquarters, C-102, 1st Floor, 419--UdyogSadan, Patparganj IndustrialArea, Delhi-110092.
--(For taking note of the adverse remarks of the Commission and complying with the directions)--
Annexure-I Page 30 of 31
1. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/662742
2. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/662767
3. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/663945
4. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/662744
5. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667777
6. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667786
7. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667785
8. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667780
9. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667775
10. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667779
11. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667781
12. CIC/EMCDS/C/2020/664759
13. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/667059
14. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/665948
15. CIC/EMCDS/A/2020/662755 Page 31 of 31