Central Information Commission
Siddhartha Mukherjee vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 23 June, 2025
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/HPCLD/A/2024/638947
Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
(HPCL)
Date of Hearing : 13.06.2025
Date of Decision : 13.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.06.2024
PIO replied on : 03.07.2024
First Appeal filed on : 09.07.2024
First Appellate Order on : 02.08.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 19.08.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Certified copy of the Vakalatnama issued to Advocate Priyanka Das who assisted Shri Sharad Singh, Former Head HR (North Zone) to file the counter affidavit Dt. 23/08/2021. Copy of the Vakalatnama has not been provided to me while Advocate Priyanka Das served a copy of this Counter Affidavit to me as Proof of service.
2. Certified copy of the Board Resolution of HPCL authorizing, Shri Sharad Singh, Former Head HR (North Zone) to represent HPCL before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the present writ petition and since Ms. Shivarti Goel has taken over as Head - HR (North Zone), certified copy of the Board Resolution empowering Ms. Shivarti Goel to replace Shri Sharad Singh may be provided.
3. Certified copy of the agenda of the aforesaid Board Resolution may be provided.
4. It may please be informed under which law and under which section/clause has been invoked by HPCL in seizing my desktop provided to me by employer, withholding salary arears accrued to me against last LTS and deactivation of my employee account and the approving authority for such action of HPCL."
The CPIO, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), Mumbai vide letter dated 03.07.2024 replied as under:-
Page 1 of 9With regard to query no. 1 of your RTI Application, please note that the Vakalatnama in WP (C) 8008 of 2021 was handed over to our Advocate on record for in turn filing before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The duly signed Vakalatnama, as filed before the Hon'ble Court is not in the custody of the CPIO, hence cannot be provided. Accordingly, in the event you require the certified copy of the same, you may approach the registry of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for obtaining the same following due process of law.
With regard to query no. 2 and 3 of your RTI Application, we wish to inform you that no such Board Resolution exists.
Further, Section 6(1) enjoins an applicant to seek "an information" through an RTI- application. The CIC has interpreted its provision to mean that not just a single query through a single application, an applicant can ask a certain number of queries should the subject-matter of all be common.
From the records, it appears that you have already submitted more than 300 RTI applications/First Appeals under RTI Act and thus well versed with the provisions of the Act. Despite the same, it appears that yourself as an applicant have been abusing the provisions of the RTI Act by raising multiple queries when the law authorizes you only to ask one or a few similar queries.
In this context, your attention is drawn to the following observations in the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"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 public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. 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 Section 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 government, preservation of Page 2 of 9 confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
A reference can also be made to the following observations made by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the matter of State Information Commission vs. Tushar Dhananjay Mandlekar, LPA No. 276/2012 in Writ Petition No. 3818/2010 (D) dated 30.07.2012.
"It is apparent from a reading of what is stated above that instead of seeking information on some specific issues, the respondent sought general information on scores of matters. The application is vague and the application does not make it clear to the Information Officer as to what information is actually sought by the respondent from the Officer. It was literally impossible for the appellants, as pointed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, to supply the entire information sought by the respondent to the respondent within a period of 30 days. The documents ran into 3419 pages. We had asked the respondent while hearing of this letters patent appeal as to what action did the respondent take in pursuance of the information sought by the respondent after the information was supplied and it was replied by the respondent appearing in person that nothing was done on the basis of the information supplied by the appellants as there was some delay in supplying the information. It is really surprising that thousands of documents are being sought by the respondent from the authorities and none of the documents is admittedly brought into use. We are clearly of the view in the aforesaid backdrop that the application was filed with a mala fide intention and with a view to abuse the process of law"
Accordingly, your RTI application is disposed of, dealing with the first three queries referred to above and the last query (Query no. 4) being connected with different subject are not dealt with under solitary RTI Application, for the reasons mentioned above."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 02.08.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission dated 05.06.2025 has been received from PIO, wherein the following facts have been stated:
i) The RTI applicant Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee, Emp. No, 3541, 3890 was an employee of the Respondent Corporation, HPCL and was assigned as Chief' Administrative Superintendent at Rewari IRD, North Zone.
ii) In response to which, the then CPI0, on 29/03/2024 which was inadvertently written as 29l03l2O23, and it was clarified that only one letter HR-NZ/SS dated 20/10/2023 was issued and that too to the Applicant itself, Since, the Applicant was privy to the said information, as such those documents were already in possession of the Applicant, therefore, it was clarified that the same cannot be termed as information held by the CPIO under the RTI Act. However, considering spirit of the RTI Act, a true copy of the letter dated 20/10/2023 was enclosed along with said letter 29/03/2023.Page 3 of 9
iii) It is further submitted that the information under Section 2(0 of the RTI Act, has been defined as any material in any form, ..., held by a public authority... Thus, it is to be noted that when an information is admittedly available with the RTI Applicant it cannot be said to be held by a public authority. Further, it is to be noted that the RTI Applicant has filed 235 RTI Applications, 1.47 First Appeals, and if precedent of such a nature is allowed where an RTI Applicant is allowed to seek true copy of the documents that is already in his possession, considering the nature of the RTI Applicant, he would seek true copy of each and every letter ever issued to him. Therefore, at this juncture, it becomes imperative for your Hon'ble Authority to decide, whether an RTI Applicant can seek true copy of a document under RTI, which is not exclusively held by the CPIO and the RTI applicant is already in possession of the document. In the event such requests are permitted, RTI applicant like the present appellant would have opportunity to further misuse the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 thereby seeking Certified Copy under RTI Act of each and every document which he already possesses. The true objective of the RTI Act in such event would not be met rather it would tantamount to disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority and wasting of public resources in obtaining copies of the documents, certifying the same and thereafter forward the copy to the RTI applicant to his last known address.
The Respondent has also submitted the following facts for consideration before the Commission:
A. While working at North Zone Office of the Corporation, the RTI applicant Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee was placed under Suspension vide Order dated 29/01/2021. The said suspension was challenged by him before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP No. 2974 of 2021. However, no interim order was passed and the petition was finally dismissed as withdrawn on 05/03/2021. B. Vide letter dated 03/06/2021 upon revoking the suspension, Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee was advised to report for duty at location Rewari IRD, to which he did not relent upon and his non-reporting for duty effective 15/06/2021 was treated as unauthorized absence. The reassignment has been challenged by the employee before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP No. 8008 of 2021, but as such no interim Order was passed staying the operations of the reassignment. Further, during hearing held on 9/8/2021, though the Hon'ble Judge, Delhi High Court verbally advised the counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee to advise his client (Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee) to report for duty else face the consequences, but Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee did not report for duty till date. In view of non reporting for duty, disciplinary action has also been initiated against him for his unauthorised absence.
The Respondent has further brought to the notice of the Commission some of the past decisions of the Commission in various cases filed by the same Applicant, as well as some legal precedents from the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, relevant extracts of the number of cases filed by the Appellant before the Delhi High Court and the current status of the cases:
C. The following Writ Petitions have been filed by Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee, challenging his reassignment/ transfer, suspension etc. against the Corporation:
Sr. No. Name of the Parties Writ No Relief Claimed Status
1 Siddhartha Mukherjee WP (C) No. Challenging Dismissed vide order
vs HPCL and Anr. 4928/2019 reassignment letter dated 18/08/2023
dated 25.01.2019 invoking the principle
Page 4 of 9
w.r.t. his reassignment of 'no work, no pay.
in different dept. in
same building.
2 Siddhartha Mukherjee WP (C) No. For quashing/suspension Vide order dtd.
Vs. DA, HPCL & Anr. 2974 of 2021 order dtd 29.01.2021 05.03.2021 petition was dismissed as withdrawn 3 Siddhartha Mukherjee WP(C) No Direction to Disposed on vs HPCL and Ors. 2392 of 2021 release his salary for the 03.08.2021 month of January 2021 consequent to and direction to keep initiation of action CCTV footage on by the Corp. against 24.12.2020 in safe erring employees custody for alleged proxy punching complaint filed by him 4 Siddhartha Mukherjee WP (C) No. Challenging alleged Interim order vs HPCL and Anr. 8008 of 2021 reduction of subsistence refused subsistence allowance, reassignment allowance neither letter dated 03.06.2021, reduced nor post and letter dated 05.07.2021 revocation entitled;
post suspension revocation. pending for final hearing.
5 Siddhartha Mukherjee LPA 660/2023 Challenged the Dismissed vide order
vs HPCL and Anr. judgment dated 18/08/2023 dated 26/09/2023
of single bench in WP (C) without issuing notice.
4928 of 2019
6 Siddhartha Mukherjee Dy. No. 38669/2024 Challenged the Dismissed vide order
vs HPCL and Anr. [Supreme Court of India] judgment dated dated 04.10.2024
26/09/2023 in LPA without issuing notice
660/2023
7 Siddhartha Mukherjee Review Petn.. Review the order Vide order dated
vs HPCL and Anr. No. 244/2025 dated 08/01/2025 of 28/04/2025, the Petition
single bench in WP(C) was dismissed and a cost
8008/2021 was imposed for filing
repeated misconceived
applications.
In the submissions the Respondent has also stated that in a Review Petition No. 244/2025 filed in WP(C) 8008/2021 by the Appellant, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 28.04.2025 has observed as under:
Quote:
13. As noted above, the petitioner has filed a number of applications in the course of these proceedings, most of which have been dismissed. While dismissing an application for early hearing [CM APPL. 8755/2025], filed merely five days after another early hearing application had been dismissed, the Court had occasion to caution the petitioner against future misadventures of this nature. The filing of repeated, misconceived applications diverts the attention of the Court from other cases pending before it. I am of the view that notwithstanding the averments regarding the petitioner's health and the service conditions, it is now necessary to impose an order of costs upon him. The review petition, and accompanying application, are therefore, dismissed with an order of costs of Rs. 5,000/- against Page 5 of 9 the petitioner, which he is directed to deposit with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
14. After the order was dictated, the petitioner, who is present in person, alongwith Dr. Puran Chand, his counsel, made certain intemperate remarks directed at the Court. At Dr. Puran Chand's request, I refrain from passing any orders initiating contempt proceedings at this stage, and once again caution the petitioner.
Unquote:
The Respondent has added the following contentions:
Since HPCL had initiated action and proceeded with domestic enquiry against Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee in line with the applicable Certified Standing Orders (applicable to Non-Management), Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee aggrieved by the Disciplinary action against him, has been continuously filing repetitive and multiple number of RTI applications, First Appeals as well as Second Appeals before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, all of which serve no larger public interest other than his personal self-interest and vengeance. A series of RTI applications have also been filed seeking personal information and related to action of the senior functionaries of the Corporation, who are directly/ indirectly connected with action initiated against Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee or have been successfully representing the Corporation before the court of law.
The Respondent has also stated that as on 29.05.2025, the Appellant had filed 235 RTI applications, 147 First Appeals and 65 Second Appeals. In the light of such large number of cases filed by the Appellant quoted from decisions passed by this Commission while disposing off the earlier batch of appeals filed by the Appellant and also placed reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court dealing with the abuse of RTI Act by litigants filing overwhelmingly large number of cases to harass the public authorities. The Apex Court in its decisions in the cases of i) Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2077 Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. and ii) Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 2011 in The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya, has discouraged such misuse and abuse of the RTI Act.
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Nanduri Srinivas - Head, HR, North Zone/CPIO; Shri P U Rao - Nodal PIO were present during hearing.
Both parties present during hearing reiterated their respective stance, as already noted hereinabove, particularly the written submissions. The Appellant voiced his objection at the fact that the Respondent was represented by the Nodal PIO and not the CPIO.
Decision Upon perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the averments of the parties it is noted that the Respondent had furnished accurate response to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no further adjudication is deemed necessary in this case.
1. Considering the large number of cases filed by the Appellant [63 cases already decided by this Commission and a batch of 12 more are heard today] and the Page 6 of 9 factual premise of the cases, the Commission finds it worthwhile to mention that time and again the Hon'ble Delhi High court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has discouraged misuse and abuse of the process of litigation as a weapon of oppression or as a weapon of personal vendetta. vexatious and frivolous petitions. The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries(AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ...."
2. The Apex Court had discussed the issue of wasteful vexatious litigation in great detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied
3. Vexatious litigation and misuse of RTI Act has been discussed in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] wherein it has been held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload Page 7 of 9 a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....."
Emphasis supplied
4. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed that:
"........Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse toexercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with Emphasis supplied
5. 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, vide its order dated 08.10.2015 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 observation essentially proves that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized problem and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not absolute.
6. Considering the adverse impact of unmanageable amount of queries, the Apex Court in a vital decision The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336) has categorically cautioned thus:
"...The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. ... The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well-informed democracy is transparency. However it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 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 government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use.."
Emphasis supplied Page 8 of 9
7. In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interest. ...................................
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............................. 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..."
Emphasis supplied In the light of the aforementioned discussion and in view of the fact that response sent by the PIO is found legally appropriate, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The 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 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)