Central Information Commission
Moturi Jyosna vs Indian Army on 12 January, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/OFBKO/C/2020/140570 +
9 others (as per Annexure)
In the matter of:
Moturi Jyosna
... Complainant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer
9 Field Ordnance Depot
9 FOD Pin - 909909, Western Command C/o 56 APO
2. Central Public Information Officer
HQ Southern Command
Koregaon Park, Pune - 411 001, Maharashtra
...Respondents
Date of Hearing : 11/01/2022 Date of Decision : 11/01/2022
Note: As the complainant sought similar information from the CPIO in all these cases, the same were clubbed and heard together for brevity.
The following were present:
Complainant: Heard over phone Respondent: Major Kamlesh Kumar, CPIO, heard over phone
1.File No. CIC/OFBKO/C/2020/140570:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal FAA's order Complaint filed dated dated dated on 23/09/2020 Not on Record 10/11/2020 Not on Record 17/12/2020 Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information in respect of her husband Sri Moturi Srihari Rao, No. 15816499L, Hav. CLK (SD):
1. Provide a copy of the request letter submitted by Mr. Rao for changing his Salary Bank account.
2. As to why misleading information has been furnished to her with regard to the change of bank account.1
3. Provide a copy of explanation given by Mr. Rao for changing the salary account from joint name to single name.
4. And other related information.
2.File No. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/139214:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal FAA's order Complaint filed dated dated dated on 03/08/2020 Not on Record 19/09/2020 Not on Record 07/12/2020 Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information in respect of her husband Sri Moturi Srihari Rao, No. 15816499L, Hav. CLK (SD):
1. M Srihari Rao filed a divorce case in the court by saying that since 19th March 2016 his wife did not stay with him. But HQ, Southern Command, Pune intimated that Mr. Rao availed Concession Vouchers for himself and his wife on 06th June 2016 from Pune to Secunderabad and Secunderabad to Pune.
(a) Provide concession voucher request letter applied by Mr. Rao.
(b) Provide concession voucher sanctioned order copy.
(c) Provide copies of concession vouchers when the was utilized for journey from Pune to Secunderabad, journey performed date, name of the persons who performed the journey.
(d) And other related information.
2. M Srihari Rao filed a divorce case in the court by saying that since 19th March 2016 his wife did not stay with him. But HQ, Southern Command, Pune intimated that Mr. Rao availed Concession Vouchers for himself and his wife on 28th October 2016 from Pune to Rajahmundry and Rajahmundry to Pune.
(a) Provide concession voucher request letter applied by Mr. Rao.
(b) Provide concession voucher sanctioned order copy.
(c) Provide concession vouchers when the was utilized for journey from Pune to Secunderabad, Journey performed date, Name of the persons who performed journey.
(d) And other related information.
3.File No. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/139226:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal FAA's order Complaint filed dated dated dated on 05/08/2020 Not on Record 19/09/2020 Not on Record 07/12/2020 Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information in respect of her husband Sri Moturi Srihari Rao, No. 15816499L, Hav. CLK (SD):
1. M Srihari Rao filed a divorce case in the court by saying that since 19th March 2016 his wife did not stay with him. HQ, Southern Command, Pune intimated that from 25th April 2017 to 15th January 2018 Government Married accommodation was provided to Mr. Rao:2
(a) Provide copy of Government married accommodation request letter applied by Mr. Rao.
(b) Provide copy of Government married accommodation allotment order given by the department to Mr. Rao.
(c) Provide copy of handing over / taking over report for the Government married accommodation handed over to Mr. Rao.
(d) And other related information.
4.File No. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/140381:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal FAA's order Complaint filed dated dated dated on 13/07/2020 10/08/2020 19/09/2020 Not on Record 11/12/2020 Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information:
1. M Srihari Rao filed a divorce case in the court by saying that since 19th March 2016 his wife did not stay with him. But AOC Records, Secunderabad had intimated that from 1st April 2016 to 27th April 2017 he had been paid CILQ. If wife did not stay with him why he had taken marriage accommodation.
- Whether any clarification was asked from Mr. Rao by the department why he had taken marriage accommodation and what explanation was given by him, provide copies of the same?
2. Whether her husband stayed at the address for which he had claimed CILQ.
(a) If he had stayed in that particular address then, from which date to which date he had stayed and with whom he had stayed in that particular address.
(b) How much amount per month CILQ was paid to her husband to stay in the particular house address.
(c) How much amount towards rent paid for the said house was claimed in the CILQ application form.
(d) And other related information.
3. Whether her husband stayed in the address which he had submitted to the department for CILQ from 1st April 2016 to 27th April 2017.
(a) Whether the CILQ was sanctioned for that address?
(b) Whether he had intimated that he had been staying in some other address.
(c) If he had intimated, as to when he had intimated that he was stating in some other address.
(d) And other related information.
4. to 8. And other related information.
5. File No. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/140396:
3RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal FAA's order Complaint filed dated dated dated on 13/07/2020 10/08/2020 19/09/2020 Not on Record 11/12/2020 Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Her husband Sri M Srihari Rao stayed at C/o Penchalayya Narayan Atla, H No. 869, S No. 71, Balaji Nagar, 6th Street, Nr. Balaji Mandir, Ghorpadi, Pune - 411 001
(a) Whether her husband informed the department that he was staying at the above mentioned address.
(b) If he had intimated then, when did he intimated to the department.
(c) Whether he intimated, with whom he stayed in that particular house.
(d) And other related information.
2. Her husband Sri M Srihari Rao stayed at C/o Penchalayya Narayan Atla, H No. 869, S No. 71, Balaji Nagar, 6th Street, Nr. Balaji Mandir, Ghorpadi, Pune - 411 001
(a) If he did not intimate to the department about staying in that particular address, whether any clarification was asked from him. If so, provide a copy of the same.
(b) What explanation was submitted by her husband, provide copy of the same.
3. And other related information.
6. File No. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/140336:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal FAA's order Complaint filed dated dated dated on 13/07/2020 10/08/2020 19/09/2020 Not on Record 11/12/2020 Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Her husband Sri M Srihari Rao stayed in the address Sri Appani Srinivasa Rao, S No. 71-11-6, Srinath Nagar, Colony No. 3, BT Kawade Road, Ghorpadi, Pune - 411 001 from 1st September 2016 to 30th November 2016.
(a) Whether her husband informed the department that he was staying at the above mentioned address.
(b) If he had intimated then, when did he intimate the department.
(c) Whether he intimated, with whom he stayed in that particular house.
(d) And other related information
2. Her husband Sri M Srihari Rao stayed in the address Sri Appani Srinivasa Rao, S No. 71-11-6, Srinath Nagar, Colony No. 3, BT Kawade Road, Ghorpadi, Pune - 411 001.
4(a) If he did not intimate to the department about staying in that particular address, whether any clarification was asked from him. If so, provide a copy of the same.
(b) What explanation was submitted by her husband, provide a copy of the same.
3. Her husband took married accommodation and stayed in different addresses without intimating the department. Whether any disciplinary action was taken for the said acts.
7. File No. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/140863:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal FAA's order Complaint filed dated dated dated on 22/09/2020 Not on Record 10/11/2020 Not on Record 16/12/2020 Information Sought:
As per letter Ref no. 0420/9/449/DV-3 it was mentioned that M Jyosna (complainant) left Srihari Rao's house in Nov 2016 for pursuing her studies and after completion of her studies in March 2018 she did not return back. He filed a divorce case in the court by saying that since 19th March 2016 his wife did not stay with him. Her husband had given two different written statements to Hon'ble Court and the Department. In regard to the same he has sought the following information:
1. Whether any explanation was asked from her husband, if so, provide a copy of the communication issued in this regard.
2. Provide a copy of the explanation submitted by her husband.
3. And other related information.
8. File No. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/141251:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal FAA's order Complaint filed dated dated dated on 24/09/2020 Not on Record 10/11/2020 Not on Record 18/12/2020 Information Sought:
1. Provide copies of leave applications submitted by Sri Moturi Srihari Rao, No. 15816499L since January 2018. What grounds for leave have been mentioned by him in the leave application.
2. Provide copies of leave sanctioning orders issued to Sri Moturi Srihari since January 2018 to till date.
3. Provide copies of leave applications submitted by Mr. Rao. How many times leave was not sanctioned/ regretted from January 2018 to till date.
9. File No. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/141634:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal FAA's order Complaint filed dated dated dated on 5 04/07/2020 30/07/2020 21/09/2020 Not on Record 22/12/2020 Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information:
1. HQ Southern Command, Pune intimated that Sri M Srihari Rao stayed in outliving (Marriage Accommodation) since 12th April 2016 to 25th April 2017.
Her husband, Sri Rao filed affidavit in a Divorce Case HMOP No. 74/2018 dated 05th June 2018 against her in the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kovvur, West Godavari (District), A.P. stating that since 19th March 2016 his wife (M Jyosna) did not stay with him.
- Whether any clarification was sought from her husband for staying in outliving (Marriage Accommodation). If so, provide a copy.
- Whether any explanation was given by her husband. If so, provide a copy.
2. Sri M Srihari Rao deliberately cheated her and introduced his illegal wife (Personate) as wedded wife to the department colleagues and higher officials and by taking the department permission he had taken marriage accommodation and stayed with his illegal wife.
- Whether any clarifications were asked from her husband for the illegal intimation. If so, provide the copy.
- Whether any explanation was given by her husband. If so provide the copy.
3. And other related information.
10.File No. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/141620:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal FAA's order Complaint filed dated dated dated on 04/07/2020 31/07/2020 21/09/2020 Not on Record 22/12/2020 Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information:
1. As per letter No. 15816499L/Civ/A dated 28th May 2018, 169MC/MF Detachment sent a letter with two different Joint Photographs i.e. IAFF-958 and Unit Long Roll photographs. From the letter given by the department, complainant came to know that IAFF-958 consists of a joint photograph of her along with Sri M Srihari Rao and the another joint photograph was of her husband Sri M Srihari Rao with Smt. Kotipalli Kumari in the Unit Long Roll. In regard to the same he has sought the following information:
- Whether any clarification was sought from her husband for affixing fake photograph of illegal wife instead of wedded wife. If so, provide a copy.
- Whether any explanation was given by her husband. If so provide the copy.6
2. Sri M Srihari Rao created fake dependent cards without the knowledge of higher officials and hide the legally wedded wife roll and utilized the department facilities.
- Whether any clarification was sought from her husband for utilising office facilities illegally. If so, provide a copy.
- Whether any explanation was given by her husband. If so provide the copy.
3. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Complaints:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant submitted that she is not satisfied with the replies of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to her in any of his above mentioned RTI application even though she was seeking information regarding the complaints filed by her and information about the benefits availed by her husband in her name. She also submitted that her written submissions may be taken on record.
In her written submissions dated 04.01.2022, common for all the above mentioned cases, she has stated that her right of Information as defined under the RTI Act cannot be subject to impugned decisions and whims and fancies of CPIO. The CPIO has given vague and evasive replies which is unjustified. The information sought by her is not covered under any of the exemptions enumerated under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. Further, the information is not forbidden under the RTI Law. In fact, the RTI Act was established in order to promote an openness and fair-play in functioning of the public authorities. She has also stated that as far as public interest is concerned, the CPIO's personal interest cannot be compared with the citizen's public interest. She has also relied on various Supreme Court & High Court Judgments to establish the fact that she is entitled to get all the information sought by her and has prayed that the CPIO may be directed to provide complete information in all her RTI application, free of cost to her.
The CPIO submitted that appropriate replies were given to the complainant. Giving case-wise details he submitted that in File No. CIC/OFBKO/C/2020/140570, a reply was given on 10.12.2020, in File No. CIC/OFBKO/C/2020/139214 & 139226, the RTI applications were forwarded to 7 Hqrs Southern Command and thereafter a reply was given on 30.12.2020. In File No. CIC/OFBKO/C/2020/140381, 140396 & 140336 a reply was given on 10.08.2020, in File No. CIC/OFBKO/C/2020/140863, a reply was given on 07.01.2021, in File No. CIC/OFBKO/C/2020/141251, a reply was given on 09.12.2020, In File No. CIC/OFBKO/C/2020/141634, a reply was given on 30.07.2020 and with regard to File No. CIC/OFBKO/C/2020/141620, a reply was given on 31.07.2020. He informed that they have put in their best efforts to settle the marital issue between the complainant and her husband, however, no compromise could be reached at by both the parties, however, the complainant was awarded 15% of the basic salary of her husband as maintenance allowance. He also submitted that the complainant is in the habit of filing multiple RTI applications followed by first and second appeals. In most of her RTIs, the queries raised are general in nature seeking reasons/clarifications and information which is personal in nature. However, all her RTI applications and appeals have been replied to from time to time.
Further, it seems that she is intentionally filling repetitive RTIs of the similar nature time and again and it becomes very difficult to reply her frequent RTIs which lead to wastage of their time and resources.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that appropriate replies were given to the complainant on 30.07.2020, 21.07.2020, 10.08.2020, 02.09.2020, 09.10.202010.12.2020, 30.12.2020 & 07.01.2021. It is also noted that the complainant through her several RTI applications has sought vast information where most of the queries raised by her are not strictly covered u/s 2(f) and for other points, she had sought personal information about her husband. Since appropriate replies have been given in every RTI application mentioned above, the complaint is not established.
The Commission also notes that today 10 complaint cases are fixed for hearing and previously also, this bench had decided two cases, one being a Second Appeal bearing File No. CIC/IARMY/A/2018/167381 decided on 05.11.2020 and another a complaint case having File No. CIC/IARMY/C/2018/167433 decided on 15.12.2020. In these cases, the complainant/appellant had sought for all and sundry information about her husband from the same respondents. The complainant should note that the Legislative scheme of the RTI Act was never to allow applicants to exercise their right recklessly without any restraint.
8It is relevant to mention below the Apex Court observations relating to impractical demands of the appellants in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011[Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009 "37. ..........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."
Following the above dicta, the Commission advises the complainant to take note of the above decision and refrain from filing repetitive applications. Further, she may also note that litigation is not a pastime and in case similar applications are again filed by her, they will be dismissed without further reference to her. There are numerous RTI applicants waiting for their turn for disposal of their second appeals/complaints.
Decision:
In view of the above, Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for intervention in these matters. The respondents are at their free will to dismiss such cases of similar kind if they are still pending with their office.
The complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयु त) Authenticated true copy 9 (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date Annexure Sl. No. File Numbers
1. CIC/OFBKO/C/2020/140570
2. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/139214
3. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/139226
4. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/140381
5. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/140396
6. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/140336
7. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/140863
8. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/141251
9. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/141634
10. CIC/IARMY/C/2020/141620 10