Central Information Commission
Mrjolly George vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 9 February, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
Cases considered on 22.1.2016
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000020
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000071
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000241
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000367
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000353
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000368
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000378
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000117
File No.CIC/SH/C/2015/000121
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000314
FileNo. CIC/SH/C/2015/000334
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000055
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000054
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000056
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000139
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000173
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000087
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000098
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000106
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000123
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000187
File No. CIC/SA/C/2015/000052/SH
File No. CIC/SA/C/2015/000075/SH
Cases considered on 2.2.2016
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000682
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000773
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000838
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000841
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000843
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001111
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001204
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001608
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001153
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000581
CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000900
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000925
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001082
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001363
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001511
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001556
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (18) / (19)
Date of first hearing : 22nd January 2016
Date of second hearing : 2nd February 2016
Date of final order : 9th February 2016
Name of the Complainant / : Shri Jolly George,
Appellant House No. 56/2, Vinayaka Colony, Ward
No.08. VillPrathrapur, PO Bathu Basthi,
South Andaman, Port Blair 744105
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent O/o. the Deputy Commissioner, (ADM)
District of South Andaman, Port Blair Attendance during the hearing on 22.1.2016.
The Complainant was present at the NIC Studio, Port Blair.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Santosh Prakash, AC (Settlement) and CPIO was present at the NIC Studio, Port Blair.
CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 Attendance during the hearing on 2.2.2016.
The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Port Blair.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Santosh Prakash, AC (Settlement) and CPIO was present in person.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal Complaint cases considered on 22.1.2016 These files contain complaints in respect of the RTI application dated 21.11.2014, 20.4.2015 (two applications), 18.5.2015, 13.5.2015, 5.1.2015, 22.12.2014, 23.12.2014, 18.12.2014, 23.1.2015, 3.12.2014, 16.1.2015, 14.1.2015, 2.2.2015, 4.2.2015, 7.12.2014 and 18.1.2015 filed by the Complainant, seeking information concerning various land related issues, both in respect of his own land and that of others. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has filed complaints to the CIC in all the cases.
2. In the RTI application dated 21.11.2014 (Files No. 20 and 71), the Complainant sought information on nine points regarding the subdivision of his land bearing survey No. 60 at Prathrapur village under Port Blair Tehsil. The Respondents stated that a reply was sent on 22.12.2014. Subsequently, the FAA passed an order on his appeal on 23.1.2015, asking the CPIO to provide the information within ten days. The CPIO sent a CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 further reply to the Complainant on 30.1.2015. The Complainant stated that he received no communication from the CPIO.
3. The RTI application dated 20.4.2015 (File No. 241) sought information on nine points regarding certain RC numbers and related issues. The Complainant stated that the information sought was concerning his own land. The Respondents submitted that the CPIO sent a reply on 20.5.2015, asking the Complainant to pay photocopying charges in respect of the information at point No. 9. However, Shri Santosh Prakash, AC (Settlement) was unable to provide us the information regarding the final disposal of the queries at points No. 1 to 8. He assured us that he would send a final response to the Complainant in respect of the above queries within fifteen days. In view of the above assurance, further enquiry into this complaint is not considered necessary.
4. In the RTI application dated 18.5.2015 (File No. 367), the Complainant sought information regarding action taken on some letters sent by him. He stated that these letters were concerning his request for subdivision of his land. The Respondents stated that a reply was sent on 14.7.2015. The Complainant claimed that this reply was not received by him.
CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071
5. In the RTI application dated 13.5.2015 (Files No. 353, 368 and 378), the Complainant sought information on seven points regarding survey No. 534, Prathrapur village. Shri Santosh Prakash, AC (Settlement) was unable to provide us the information regarding the final disposal of this application, but assured us that a reply would be sent to the Complainant, if not already done, within fifteen days. In view of the above assurance, we do not consider it necessary to enquire further into this complaint.
6. In the RTI application dated 5.1.2015 (Files No. 117 and 121), the information sought was regarding revenue case No. 429/2008/DC/SA. Shri Santosh Prakash, AC (Settlement) stated that the Complainant had himself mentioned in the RTI application that the department concerned with the information was DC, South Andaman. Instead of sending the application to that office, he sent it deliberately to his office and was informed that the information was not available in the office of AC (Settlement). However, Shri Santosh Prakash assured us that he would check the position with the concerned CPIO and a final reply would be sent to the Complainant in fifteen days.
7. The RTI application dated 20.4.2015 (Files No. 314 and 334), sought action taken report on certain letters and RD numbers. The Respondents stated that a reply was sent on 11.5.2015 (they have a postal receipt concerning it) and the Complainant was asked to CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 pay photocopying charges of Rs. 508/ to get the information. However, he did not do so. The Complainant, on the other hand, stated that the FAA passed an order on 20.7.2015, directing provision of information on points No. 1 and 5 within twenty days. Shri Santosh Prakash, AC (Settlement) stated that he has had the information ready with him and the Complainant can get it by paying the photocopying charges intimated to him on 11.5.2015. The Complainant claimed that he did not receive the CPIO's letter dated 11.5.2015.
8. In the RTI application dated 23.12.2014 (File No. 54), the Complainant sought the entire history of survey No. 394 /1/3. The Respondents stated that the application was transferred on 13.1.2015 to AC (SA) and AC (HQ), who sent their replies on 23.2.2015 and 21.1.2015 respectively. The former stated that no subdivision of land had taken place and the latter asked for the details of the revenue case to provide further information. The Complainant claimed that he did not receive any of the above letters. The Complainant had earlier filed another RTI application on 22.12.2014 (File No. 55), seeking information regarding survey No. 203/134. The Respondents stated that it was responded to on 13.1.2015. The Complainant stated that no information had been provided.
9. The RTI application dated 18.12.2014 (File No. 56) sought the entire history of Survey No. 1/134. Shri Santosh Prakash, AC (Settlement) stated that the application was CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 transferred to the concerned CPIOs on 5.1.2015 and a reply was sent to the Complainant on 20.2.2015, asking him for the details of the revenue case(s) and year etc. to trace out the information. Explaining their reply, the Respondents stated that a survey number covers a whole village, containing the land holdings of different persons. Sub Division of land belonging to owners may have taken place within the area of a survey from time to time and in different cases. Some such cases may be extremely old. Therefore, it is essential for them to get the details of the revenue case (s) and the year etc. to trace out the information. The Complainant stated that the information has not been provided.
10. In the RTI application dated 23.1.2015 (Files No. 139 and 173), the Complainant had sought information regarding subdivision of land in the case of five survey numbers. The Respondents stated that a reply was sent on 2.2.2015 and, for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Complainant was asked to provide the details of the relevant revenue cases and years etc. to enable them to trace out the information. The Complainant complained that the information has not been provided.
11. In the RTI application dated 3.12.2014 (File No. 87), the Complainant sought copies of certain communications. Shri Santosh Prakash, AC (Settlement), stated that he sent a reply on 13.1.2015, stating that the information was not available in his office. He further CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 submitted that the matter relates to the office of the DC and the Complainant has been deliberately filing a number of RTI applications to his office, while knowing that the information pertains to other offices. The Complainant denied this and complained that the information was not provided.
12. The RTI application dated 16.1.2015 (File No. 98), sought information from AC (Settlement) regarding status report / action taken report on subdivision of land bearing No. 60 at Prathrapur village. The Complainant submitted that the information has been received by him and the matter may be closed. It is noted that he had earlier filed another application dated 14.1.2015 (File No. 106) to the AC (Settlement) seeking similar information concerning subdivision of the same land. In view of the information provided in response to the application dated 16.1.2015, no action is due on this application.
13. The RTI application dated 2.2.2015 (File No. 123) sought information regarding action taken in respect of some missing documents. The Respondents stated that the FAA passed an order in this case on 24.3.2015, asking the Complainant to deposit photocopying charges of Rs. 34/ to get the information. The Complainant stated that he did not receive the FAA's order.
CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071
14. In the RTI application dated 4.2.2015 (File No. 187), the Complainant sought information on three points regarding certain revenue cases. The Respondents stated that a reply was sent on 19.2.2015 and the Complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 14/ to get the information on point No. 3. He remitted this amount on 17.11.2015 and the information was provided on 20.11.2015. The information at points No. 1 and 2 was not available at the office of the AC (Settlement) and it was clear to the Complainant that it would be available with the Tehsildar. Yet he filed these queries deliberately to the office of AC (Settlement).
15. In the RTI application dated 7.12.2014 (File No. 52), the Complainant sought information regarding some land survey numbers. The Respondents stated that it was transferred to the concerned CPIOs on 23.12.2014, who provided the information. The Complainant stated that the information was provided after receipt of the Commission's notice for today's hearing and was received by him on 13.1.2016. He alleged that complete information has not been sent.
16. The RTI application dated 18.1. 2015 (File No. 75) sought the information concerning certain file notings and land details. Shri Santosh Prakash, AC (Settlement) submitted that the information clearly pertains to the offices of Tehsildar and AC (South CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 Andaman). However, the Complainant chose to file the RTI application to his office deliberately. The Complainant stated that the Respondents have not put out the information under Section 4 in respect of various CPIOs and the subjects dealt with by them. He also complained that the information has not been provided to him in this case also.
Appeal cases considered on 2.2.2016
17. The sixteen files considered on 2.2.2016 contain appeals in respect of the RTI applications dated 21.11.2014, 1.12.2014, 14.11.2014, 8.12.2014, 28.11.2014, 19.1.2015, 29.1.2015 (two RTI applications), 2.3.2015, 7.12.2014, 10.11.2014, 31.12.2014, 10.12.2014, 11.12.2014 and 16.2.2015 (two RTI applications), filed by the Appellant, seeking information concerning various land related issues, both in respect of his own land and that of others. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has filed appeals to the Commission in all the cases. These cases were listed for hearing on 14.1.2016 and the matter was adjourned to be heard again on 2.2.2016 vide our order No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000682 (plus seventeen files) dated 14.1.2016.
18. In the RTI application dated 21.11.2014 (File No. 682), the Appellant sought information on nine points regarding an application dated 5.2.2014 concerning sub CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 division of his land. The Respondents stated that a reply was sent to the Appellant on 22.12.2014. Some of the information was provided and on two points, the Appellant was asked to deposit the photocopying charges to obtain the information. Subsequently, the Tehsildar on Special Duty provided some additional information on 27.1.2015 and the Tehsildar, Port Blair provided supplementary information on 30.4.2015. The Appellant stated that he has not received the information.
19. The RTI application dated 1.12.2014 (File No. 773) sought the entire extracts of two survey numbers. The CPIO responded on 19.12.2014 and informed the Appellant that further details such as revenue case number were required to trace out the records. The Appellant complained that he has not been provided the information sought by him.
20. In the RTI application dated 14.11.2014 (File No. 838), the Appellant sought information on four points regarding certain land issues. The CPIO responded on 28.11.2014 and in the case of three queries, asked the Appellant to deposit the photocopying charges to obtain the information. In one case, he asked him to obtain the information from the Tehsildar, Port Blair. The Appellant stated that he has not been provided the information on all the four points.
CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071
21. The RTI application dated 8.12.2014 (File No. 841) sought copies of the entire abstract of the file in respect of three survey numbers. The CPIO responded on 19.12.2014 and once again asked the Appellant to provide revenue case number etc. to trace out the information.
22. In the RTI application dated 28.11.2014 (File No. 843), the Appellant enquired about the action taken on his letter dated 28.10.2014 regarding the subdivision of his land. The CPIO responded on 17.12.2014 and provided the information on some points, while asking the Appellant to deposit the photocopying charges to get information on one point. The Appellant had also enquired as to when he would get his land subdivided, the CPIO informed him that such a query could not be responded to under the RTI Act, but that the matter being of a quasijudicial nature, would be heard and decided in the court of the Deputy Commissioner, who was the competent authority to order subdivision. The Appellant complained that no information has been provided to him.
23. The RTI application dated 19.1.2015 (File No. 1111) sought information regarding file movement registers of some offices. The CPIO stated that the Appellant collected copies of the file movement register of PA to AC(S) and GIS Section by paying the photocopying charges. The Appellant stated that copies of the registers of PA to DC, CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 Tehsildar on Special Duty and Tehsildar Port Blair have not been provided. The CPIO is directed to provide this remaining information to the Appellant free of charge.
24. The RTI application dated 29.1.2015 (File No. 1204) sought information regarding some work allocation and handing over of revenue case file etc. The CPIO responded on 12.2.2015. The Appellant stated that he has received the information by paying photocopying charges of Rs. 14/ and no further action is due in this case.
25. In the RTI application dated 2.3.2015 (File No. 1608), the Appellant sought information on fifteen points regarding certain revenue issues. The CPIO responded on 23.3.2015 and asked the Appellant to get information on three points by depositing photocopying charges. In respect of the remaining points, he asked him to approach the offices concerned, indicated in the CPIO's reply.
26. In the RTI application dated 7.12.2014 (File No. 1153), the Appellant sought information on four points regarding various land issues. The CPIO stated that the application was transferred to the offices concerned and the Tehsildar, Port Blair provided the information pertaining to his office on 7.1.2016.
CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071
27. The RTI application dated 10.11.2014 (File No. 581) sought the entire abstract of file in respect of a revenue case number. The CPIO responded on 25.11.2014 and stated that the information may be obtained from the office of the Tehsildar on Special Duty. The Appellant stated that in his order dated 5.1.2015, the FAA directed the Assistant Commissioner (Settlement) and CPIO to obtain the file from the Tehsildar, Port Blair (APIO) and provide the abstract of the file free of cost within fifteen days. The CPIO is directed to comply with the FAA's order, if not already done.
28. The RTI application dated 31.12.2014 (File No. 900), sought information regarding a survey number. The CPIO responded on 16.1.2015 and stated that the information could be obtained from the concerned Tehsildar and also transferred the application to the offices concerned. The CPIO submitted during the hearing that the information was provided by the Tehsildar, Port Blair on 13.1.2016. The Appellant stated that he has not received this letter. The CPIO is directed to forward another copy of this letter to the Appellant.
29. The RTI application dated 10.12.2014 (File No. 925) sought information regarding two revenue cases. The CPIO stated that information regarding the first revenue case has been provided to the Appellant on 21.1.2015. The CPIO is directed to get the CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 information concerning the second revenue case, mentioned in this application, and provide it to the Appellant.
30. In the RTI application dated 11.12.2014 (File No. 1082), the Appellant again sought information regarding some land issues. The CPIO responded on 17.12.2014 and transferred the application to the concerned offices. The CPIO submitted during the hearing that the Tehsildar, Port Blair provided the information on 4.1.2016.
31. The RTI application dated 29.1.2015 (File No. 1363), sought status report of the action taken on his letter dated 5.1.2015. The FAA ordered on 8.4.2015 that the Assistant Commissioner (Settlement) should provide the information to the Appellant within ten days. The CPIO is directed to comply with this order of the FAA, if not already done.
32. The RTI application dated 16.2.2015 (File No. 1511) sought information regarding a copy of the action taken and status report on his letter dated 28.1.2015. The application was filed to the office of the Chief Secretary and Deputy Secretary (Revenue) informed the Appellant on 3.3.2015 that the representation had been referred to the office of Deputy Commissioner on 5.2.2015. The Appellant stated that the final status of the action taken on his application should be provided. In this context, we note that Deputy Secretary CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 (Revenue) informed the Appellant about the status of action on his application as on the date of his reply (3.3.2015). Therefore, the application was responded to in keeping with the RTI Act.
33. In the RTI application dated 16.2.2015 (File No. 1556), the Appellant sought information regarding the action taken on his letter dated 4.2.2015, addressed to the Chief Secretary. The application was filed to the office of the Lt. Governor. The CPIO from that office informed the Appellant that the application, received in the office of Lt. Governor, was forwarded to the Principal Secretary (Revenue) on 5.2.2015. The Appellant stated that the final status of the action taken on his application should be provided. In this context, we note that Deputy Secretary (Revenue) informed the Appellant about the status of action on his application as on the date of his reply (25.2.2015). Therefore, the application was responded to in keeping with the RTI Act. Decision
34. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties in respect of the 23 complaints and 16 appeals covered by this order. In so far as the cases considered on 22.1.2016 are concerned, we note that these are complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Therefore, we are not in a position to give a directive to the Respondents regarding CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 provision of any information in these cases. In respect of all the cases under consideration in this order, the Complainant / Appellant has alleged that information was not provided to him in a number of cases. In others, he claimed that the replies sent by the Respondents were not received by him or the information was received after the stipulated timeframe. He has also sought action against the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, alleging that the Respondents generally fail to respond to his RTI applications and do not comply with the orders of the Commission. It is seen that the Complainant's main grievance is rejection of his request regarding subdivision of his land. He also believes that subdivision has been sanctioned in similar other cases. Therefore, he has filed a large number of RTI applications, enquiring not only about the subdivision of his land, but also about the subdivisions carried out in various survey numbers over the years. As explained by the Respondents, it is difficult for them to trace out the information concerning all subdivisions in various survey numbers in the absence of the details of the relevant revenue cases or the year of subdivision. In this context, they also submitted that the land records date from 1961. We find merit in this argument of the Respondents. The Complainant / Appellant, on the other hand, insists that he should be provided all the information concerning various survey numbers because of his belief that subdivision has been granted in cases similar to his own, whereas his request was rejected. In this CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 context, the Respondents stated that the Complainant's request for subdivision of his land was rejected by the DC on 17.4.2015. The normal course of action for the Complainant / Appellant would have been to file an appeal to the Appellate Authority in the revenue channel i.e. the Principal Secretary (Revenue). In response to our query, the Complainant / Appellant stated that he has filed such an appeal in December 2015, though he did not remember the date. Instead, he has filed a large number of RTI applications, seeking information regarding various land records. From some of his applications, it is seen that he has also filed various representations in the matter and followed up the same with RTI applications, seeking information concerning the action taken on those representations. The Respondents have submitted to us copy of an order passed by the DC on 9.11.2015, pursuant to a directive from the Principal Secretary to dispose of the grievances of the Appellant concerning subdivision of his land. In this order, the DC ruled that if all cotenants submitted proposal for subdivision of the land, the same would be considered separately. He, however, rejected the grievance of the Complainant /Appellant concerning subdivision on the ground that the proposal submitted by him was not consented by cotenants since, the land in question was recorded in the joint names. The Complainant / appellant alleged that his request for subdivision has been rejected without any justification. In this context, we note that the CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 Complainant / Appellant and his father, Shri George have filed as many as 152 appeals / complaints to the Commission during the period 2012 to January 2016. Out of these, as many as 101 appeals / complaints were filed in 2015. We also note our following observation, made in our order No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000361 (plus seven files) dated 31.7.2015, regarding the Complainant's grievance concerning the rejection of his request for subdivision, which underlies the various RTI applications filed by him: "He ought to appreciate that this is not a matter that can be resolved under the RTI Act or by filing multiple RTI applications. He is at liberty to take it up in an appropriate forum."
The Appellant / Complainant has alleged in a large number of cases that the communications sent by the Respondents to him were not received. We have no reason to disbelieve the Respondents' submissions regarding the various replies sent by them. During the hearings, they pointed out that they have the postal record concerning the replies sent by them and wherever a reply has not been sent, they admitted this fact. We also find some weight in the submission of the AC (Settlement) that a large number of applications have been filed to his office, even though the information is known to be held in other revenue offices. The Appellant / Complainant claimed that the Respondents have CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 not put out the information concerning the various CPIOs. However, from the number of applications filed by him, referring to various land cases/ surveys, he does not appear to be unaware of the issues dealt with by various revenue offices. It is true that not all the applications have been handled strictly in keeping with the provisions of the RTI Act. However, the confusion caused by the large number of applications filed by the Appellant / Complainant is, to a large extent, responsible for this.
35. In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in concluding that the manner in which the Complainant / Appellant has filed a large number of RTI applications to the officers, who have dealt with the case of subdivision of his land, thereby burdening not only the Respondents but also the Commission with avoidable work, amounts to misuse of the RTI Act. In this context, we also note the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay in Civil Appeal No. 6454 Of 2011 in which it has advised the information seekers not create a situation whereby 75% of the time of the 75% public servants is spent only in responding to the RTI applications to the detriment of their routine duties. Para 37 of the said order is extracted below: "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 CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071 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 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." We further note the following observation made by the High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 5.2.2014 in Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014]: "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 beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071
36. The above notwithstanding, we asked the Appellant to identify any two survey numbers, in respect of which the entire land records could be made available to him for inspection, in view of his belief that in cases similar to his own, subdivision of land has been allowed. In this context, he identified the following survey numbers, which formed the subject matter of his RTI application dated 8.12.2014 (File No. 841):
(a) Survey No. 90/1 (Prathrapur Village).
(b) Survey No. 262/1 (Prathrapur Village).
The AC (Settlement) and CPIO is directed to procure all the land records and the available records of subdivision in respect of the above surveys and facilitate inspection of the same by the Appellant in his office. In view of the voluminous records, the Appellant should be given a day to inspect the records concerning each survey. After such inspection, the Appellant should be given photocopies of up to fifty pages of the inspected records for each survey, desired by him, free of charge. Any additional copies required by him should be given against payment of the prescribed photocopying charges.
37. The AC (Settlement) and CPIO is directed to comply with our directives in paragraphs 23, 27, 28, 29 and 31 within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071
38. As far as the prayer of the Appellant / Complainant regarding action against the CPIO under Section 20 is concerned, for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, we do not regard it as a fit case for consideration of such action. We would strongly advise the Appellant/ Complainant to exercise the right, available to him as a citizen of India under the RTI Act, responsibly and avoid filing multiple RTI applications, particularly since his grievance regarding subdivision of his land cannot be addressed under the RTI Act. .
39. With the above directions and observations, the 23 complaints and 16 appeals are disposed of.
40. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000071