Central Information Commission
Kavita Grover vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 30 July, 2020
के ीयसू चनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागं गनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं ा / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/103540
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/103541
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/103539
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/103538
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104018
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104017
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104016
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104015
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104841
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104840
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104839
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104833
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104832
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/105272
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/105468
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/105467
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/105465
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/105464
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104014
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104838
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104835
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104834
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/105463
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104836
Mrs. Kavita Grover ...अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, SDMC, O/o The Executive Engineer
(Bldg-II), South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi - ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
110016
Through: Sh. Rajeev Kumar - APIO
Date of Hearing : 29.07.2020
Date of Decision : 30.07.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Page 1 of 14
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are
clubbed together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO First FAA's order Second
Nos. replies Appeals Appeals
103540 28.08.2018 19.09.2018 17.10.2018 26.10.2018 23.01.2019
103541 28.08.2018 19.09.2018 17.10.2018 26.10.2018 23.01.2019
103539 25.07.2018 20.08.2018 12.09.2018 26.10.2018 23.01.2019
103538 25.07.2018 31.08.2018 12.09.2018 26.10.2018 23.01.2019
104018 16.08.2018 07.09.2018 18.09.2018 26.10.2018 28.01.2019
104017 16.08.2018 07.09.2018 17.09.2018 26.10.2018 28.01.2019
104016 16.08.2018 07.09.2018 17.09.2018 26.10.2018 28.01.2019
104015 25.07.2018 31.08.2018 12.09.2018 26.10.2018 28.01.2019
104841 28.08.2018 19.09.2018 18.10.2018 26.10.2018 01.02.2019
104840 28.08.2018 19.09.2018 22.10.2018 13.12.2018 01.02.2019
104839 16.08.2018 07.09.2018 18.09.2018 26.10.2018 01.02.2019
104833 25.07.2018 07.09.2018 10.09.2018 26.10.2018 31.01.2019
104832 25.07.2018 07.09.2018 10.09.2018 26.10.2018 31.01.2019
105272 28.08.2018 19.09.2018 17.10.2018 13.12.2018 05.02.2019
105468 16.08.2018 07.09.2018 18.09.2018 26.10.2018 06.02.2019
105467 17.09.2018 18.10.2018 26.10.2018 13.12.2018 06.02.2019
105465 28.08.2018 19.09.2018 26.10.2018 13.12.2018 06.02.2019
105464 16.09.2018 18.10.2018 26.10.2018 13.12.2018 06.02.2019
104014 16.05.2018 27.06.2018 12.09.2018 26.10.2018 28.01.2019
104838 06.08.2018 07.09.2018 12.09.2018 26.10.2018 01.02.2019
104835 30.07.2018 07.09.2018 10.09.2018 26.10.2018 01.02.2019
104834 06.08.2018 07.09.2018 10.09.2018 26.10.2018 31.01.2019
105463 30.07.2018 07.09.2018 17.09.2018 26.10.2018 06.02.2019
104836 08.08.2018 07.09.2018 10.09.2018 - 01.02.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
1. The appellant filed RTI applications seeking information in the form of action taken reports on her complaints pertaining to the unauthorised construction on property number L-48C, DDA Janta Flat, Saket and about some other neighbouring properties including her own property at L-48D, DDA Janta Flats. She filed a number of complaints before the E.E. (Bldg.-II) and Deputy Commissioner SDMC, South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi and sought the same information comprising action taken on her complaints, in the following order:
S. Nos. Case Subject of Information
Nos.
1 Diary no. 5876 in connection with complaint dated
103540
29.09.2016 filed before E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC.
2 Diary no. 6135 in connection with complaint dated 103541 07.10.2016 filed before E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC. 3 Complaint filed before E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC on 21.12.2016 103539 vide Diary No. 7875-II/21.12.2016 4 103538 Complaint filed before E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC on 27.04.2016 Page 2 of 14 vide Diary No. 826-II/27.04.2016 5 Complaint filed before E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC on 05.06.2018 104018 vide Diary No. 2159 6 Complaint filed before E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC on 14.06.2018 104017 vide Diary No. 2718 7 Complaint filed before E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC on 06.04.2018 104016 vide Diary No. 191 8 Complaint filed before E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC on 23.12.2016 104015 vide Diary No. 7282 9 Complaint filed before Deputy Commissioner, SDMC on 104841 13.07.2017 vide Diary No. 6196 10 Complaint filed before Deputy Commissioner, SDMC on 104840 21.09.2016 vide Diary No. 10553 11 Complaint filed before Deputy Commissioner, SDMC on 104839 06.04.2018 vide Diary No. 383 12 Diary no. 15588/DC/SE-II/26-12-2016 in connection with 104833 complaint dated 23.12.2016 filed before Dy. Commissioner, South Zone 13 Complaint filed before Dy. Commissioner on 21.12.2016 vide 104832 Diary No. 15453/DC/SE-II/22.12.2016 14 Diary no. 5516 in connection with complaint dated 105272 19.09.2016 filed before E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC. 15 Diary no. 3517 in connection with complaint dated 105468 05.06.2018 filed before Deputy Commissioner, SDMC. 16 Diary no. 7291/DC in connection with complaint dated 105467 09.08.2018 filed before Deputy Commissioner, SDMC. 17 Diary no. 11684 in connection with complaint dated 105465 07.10.2016 filed before Deputy Commissioner, SDMC. 18 Diary no. 5455-II in connection with complaint dated 105464 09.08.2018 filed before E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC.
2. The PIO/E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC, Delhi furnished replies to the appellant, enclosing copies of relevant pages of the diary register wherein her complaints were registered. The appellant was further informed that the property in question had been booked for deviation and excess coverage against standard building plan at FF and UC of SF on 15.02.2006 and on 24.05.2016 and demolition action had been taken on 27.07.2017. In some cases, the PIO has responded that the complaint has been forwarded to the concerned JE for necessary action.
3. Dissatisfied with the replies received from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeals before the FAA questioning inaction of the respondent despite passing of demolition order. The FAA/SE-II/SZ, SDMC decided the First Appeal directing the EE (Bldg.)-II/SZ PIO to provide the revised and complete information as sought by the applicant.
4. The PIO submitted a letter dated 28.11.2018, mentioning that the appellant had filed 5 second appeals on the same subject matter before the Central Information Commission, which had been decided by an order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the erstwhile Information Commissioner. In compliance of the CIC's order dated 26.09.2018, a revised reply dated Page 3 of 14 29.10.2018 had already been furnished to the appellant, apprising her of the status of the property No. L-48C, DDA Janta Flats, Saket, New Delhi. The respondent apprised the appellant in detail that after the issuance of Vacation Notice and Lock Breaking Notice under sections 349 and 433/435 respectively of the DMC Act, 1957 the roof slab of the third floor in premises no. L-48C, DDA Flats was demolished. Aggrieved by such punitive action initiated by the Respondent, owner of the property no. L-48C viz. Sh. Anil Puri, filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal of MCD, where the case was pending final arguments as on 17.04.2019.
Still aggrieved the Appellant approached the Commission with the eighteen (18) appeals.
Apart from the above batch of eighteen appeals with a similar pattern of questions, the appellant filed six more appeals raising various questions about the pending cases at Civil Courts, non-demolition of 250 other properties in the same area of Saket etc. The six appeals have been discussed at length here under:
(19) CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104014 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 16.05.2018 seeking information pertaining to Property No. L-48C, DDA Janta Flat, Saket, in the following order:-
1. How many built up floors were allotted in L - 48C by DDA?
2. How many floors exist in L - 48C?
3. Tax for how many floors is being paid each year by the owner of L - 48C?
4. What is the total area of L-48C?
5. Whether inheritance has been claimed by the owner of L-48C before the IT Department?
The PIO/E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC, Delhi furnished a reply on point No. 2 to the appellant vide letter dated 27.06.2018 informing the appellant that the property in question has been booked vide file No. 211/UC/B-II/SZ/16 dt 24-05-2016 for Deviation/Excess coverage against standard building plan of DDA at 1st Floor and U/c at 2nd Floor and 3rd Floor.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 26.10.2018 directed the EE (Bldg.)-II/SZ PIO to provide the revised and complete information as sought by the applicant within 10 days as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005.
Claiming non-compliance of FAA's order, appellant filed the instant Second Appeal.
Page 4 of 14Upon issuance of hearing notice, the Respondent has submitted a letter dated 28.11.2018 which was sent in compliance of FAA's order, mentioning that pursuant to CIC's earlier order dated 26.09.2018, a revised reply dated 29.10.2018 had already been furnished to the appellant, apprising her that Shri Anil Puri, the property owner of L-48C, Janta Flats, Saket, accused of unauthorised construction had approached the ATMCD and the case is pending finality.
(20) CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104838 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.08.2018 seeking reason for non-demolition of 250 properties out of 252 properties of L Block, DDA Janta Flats, Saket that were booked for unauthorized construction. The appellant's case arises from demolition carried against her property bearing no. L-48C whileowners of property L-48D obtained stay order from the ATMCD.
The PIO/E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC, Delhi furnished a reply to the appellant vide letter dated 07.09.2018 stating that the information sought is not available in the office record.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 26.10.2018 directed the EE (Bldg.)-II/SZ PIO to provide the revised and complete information as sought by the applicant within 10 days as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005.
In compliance of the FAA's order, the PIO/EE (Bldg.-II) vide communication dated 28.11.2018 replied to the appellant referring to and enclosing a copy of a reply dated 10.08.2018[enclosure not found on record].
(21) CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104835 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.07.2018 seeking information on the following points:-
1. Whether floors I, II & III of L-48D are/were exempted under NCTD Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2007?
2. Provide the reasons for which the Flat of the applicant was demolished by EE(B-II), SDMC South Zone without any prior notice.
3. If L-48D [applicant's property] was demolished for unauthorised construction u/s 343/344 of DMC Act 1957, why similar action has not been taken against L-48D in last 12 years though several notices have been issued?
4. Why CWP No. 2873/2017 filed by the appellant in the Delhi High Court was not mentioned or brought to the notice of Appellate Tribunal Page 5 of 14 Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Tis Hazari by the Counsel & the officers of SDMC?
5. Provide photographs of demolition action of 01 RCC on floor III as mentioned by EE(B-II), SDMC in his counter affidavit.
6. Status report filed by SDMC before ATMCD, Tis Hazari Court, with respect to property no. L-48C Etc. The PIO/E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC, Delhi furnished a point wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 07.09.2018, enclosing copy of a status report against query no. 6 as sought by the appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 10.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 26.10.2018 directed the EE (Bldg.)-II/SZ PIO to provide the information as asked for to the applicant within 10 days as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005.
In compliance of the FAA's order, the PIO/EE (Bldg.-II)vide communication dated 28.11.2018 replied to the appellant referring to and enclosing a copy of a reply dated 31.07.2018[enclosure not found on record].
(22) CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104834 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 06.08.2018 seeking reason for non-demolition of 250 properties out of 252 properties of L Block, DDA Janta Flats, Saket that were booked for unauthorized construction. The appellant's case arises from demolition carried out against her property bearing no. L-48C while owners of property L-48D got stay order from the ATMCD.
The PIO/E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC, Delhi furnished a reply to the appellant vide letter dated 07.09.2018 stating that the information sought is not available in the office record.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 10.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 26.10.2018 directed the EE (Bldg.)-II/SZ PIO to provide the information as asked for to the appellant within 10 days as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005.
In compliance of the FAA's order, the PIO/EE (Bldg.-II)vide communication dated 03.12.2018 replied to the appellant referring to and enclosing a copy of reply dated 10.08.2018[enclosure not found on record].
(23) CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/105463 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 30.07.2018 seeking information regarding the counter affidavit filed by Sh. Bhushan Kumar-EE (B-II) before Page 6 of 14 the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 2873/2017. Out of eight queries raised by the appellant, some have been reproduced as under:
1. Whether floors I, II & III of L-48D are protected/exempted under NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2007?
2. Provide the reasons for which DDA Janta Flat of the applicant was demolished by EE(B-II), SDMC South Zone without any prior notice.
3. If L-48C was demolished for unauthorised construction u/s 343/344 of DMC Act 1957, why similar action has not been taken against L-48D in last 12 year though several notices were issued?
4. Why CRP 2873/2017 of Delhi High Court in Kavita Grover vs SDMC &Ors. was not mentioned /brought to the notice of Appellate Tribunal Municipal Court, Tis Hazari by the Counsel & the officers of SDMC?
5. Provide photographs of demolished Roof Slab of floor III as mentioned by EE(B-II), SDMC in his counter affidavit. etc The PIO/E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC, Delhi furnished a reply to the appellant vide letter dated 07.09.2018, enclosing a reply dated 31.07.2018 furnishing action taken report against query number 2 and status report against query number 6.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 17.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 26.10.2018 directed the EE (Bldg.)-II/SZ PIO to provide the information as asked for to the applicant within 10 days as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005.
In compliance of the FAA's order, the PIO/EE (Bldg.-II) vide communication dated 28.11.2018 reiterating the earlier response, mentioned that pursuant to CIC order dated 26.09.2018, a revised reply dated 29.10.2018 had been provided to the appellant.
(24) CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104836 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.08.2018 seeking the reply of the Deputy Commissioner, SDMC, Green Park to the legal notice sent by the applicant u/s 80 CPC for demolishing all the 252 Flats in L Block, DDA Janta Flats, Saket which were booked by MCD between 16.01.2003 to 24.05.2016.
The PIO/E.E. (Bldg.-II), SDMC, Delhi furnished a reply to the appellant vide letter dated 07.09.2018, informing the appellant that no such application was received in their office.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 10.09.2018. Appellant has mentioned about receipt of FAA's order dated 26.10.2018, whereby FAA directed the EE to furnish any additional information, if available with the EE. The Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal seeking demolition of the above mentioned 250 flats constructed illegally in the Saket area.
Page 7 of 14Perusal of the contents of the above mentioned six appeals indicate that the appeals mentioned at serial numbers 20 and 22, viz. [CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104838 and CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104834] contain similar sets of questions. Similarly, the appeals mentioned at number 21 and 23 viz. [CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104835 and CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/105463] also contain same set of questions. This anomaly seems to have arisen because the same RTI application has been filed twice and consequently two separate appeals have been filed originating from each RTI application, thereby multiplying the proceedings unnecessarily.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
5. Perusal of the above Second Appeals filed by the appellant reveal that apart from these appeals, the appellant has filed a number of cases before various fora, viz. the Saket Court, High Court and another appeal preferred by the third party [property owner] is already pending before ATMCD, Tis Hazari with respect to the same issue of demolition of unauthorised construction. The appellant has mentioned the list of matters filed by her before various fora, in the second Appeal no. CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/104018, as follows:
1. In the High Court of Delhi - WP(C) No. 1083/2016 Kavita Grover vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.
2. In the High Court of Delhi - WP(C) No. 2873/2017 Kavita Grover vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.
3. In the Court of Ms. Tyagita Singh, Ld. SCJ/RC, South, Saket Court Suit No. 427/2018 Kavita Grover vs. Anil Puri&Ors.
4. In the Court of Ms. Tyagita Singh, Ld. SCJ/RC, South, Saket Court Suit No. 84391/2016 Anil Puri&Anr. Vs. Kavita Grover &Ors.
5. In the Court of Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, AD&SJ, ATMCD, Tis Hazari Appeal No. 705/2017 Anil Puri&Anr. Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation Apart from the above litigations pending at various Civil courts, an erstwhile Bench of this Commission had already decided 5 appeals in a batch bearing case number CIC/SDMCS/A/2017/140593 and 4 more.
6. In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.Page 8 of 14
7. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones. Appellant narrated the background of the case stating that she purchased the property in 20.06.2010 and in 2016 when some renovation work was being carried out in her property, the roof on the third floor of her flat was demolished by MCD, without any prior notice. She has filed these appeals because she believes she has been targeted and victimised by MCD and her ongoing construction in the property was demolished, though her property was protected under the Special Provisions Act while properties in the same locality with similar unauthorised construction have not been acted upon. Appellant alleges that respondent's officials keep visiting her premises and threaten demolition of her property.
She wants that the neighbourhood properties (approx. 250 in number) which also have unauthorised construction like her own property should also be demolished like her property has been demolished.
8. Respondent clarifies that only a tin shed was removed on the roof of third floor when demolition action was taken in 2016, which is documented as per the site inspection report. Respondent explains that when deviation is noted in an ongoing construction, the demolition action is taken promptly without any notice, in order to prevent the unauthorised construction from being completed. The respondent pointed out that the above cases and several other RTI cases filed by the appellant arise out of her dispute with her immediate neighbour at property no. L-48C and the appellant has been relentlessly filing cases before the Courts, SC/ST Commission and other fora, making various allegations against the respondent public authority as well as individual officials. He further submitted that since multiple cases have been filed by the appellant before various Courts, from time to time physical inspection of the site has to be undertaken, to submit reports as directed by the Court. The appellant views these visits as threats though such visits are undertaken only for inspection and not for carrying out any demolition. Respondent voluntarily offers that the appellant can ask for any available documents, and he is ready to provide all support in this regard.
Decision
9. Perusal of records of the cases above and averments of the parties placed forth during hearing reveal that the genesis of all the above cases filed by the appellant is her grievance with demolition of the unauthorised construction in her flat, to the exclusion of similar action against similar properties in her neighbourhood. Information sought by her does not suffer from any legal infirmity, but she seeks redressal of her grievance and has sought direction from this Commission for initiating action for demolition of unauthorised construction in all the other premises, in the locality.
10. It is pertinent to note that the scope and ambit of the RTI Act is restricted to disclosure of information held by the public authority. The Commission places reliance on decisions which have from time to time discussed this aspect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] Page 9 of 14 No.2309/2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210/2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 of 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 of 2012 wherein it has been held that:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
11. A similar view is echoed by the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.[LPA No.785/2012] dated 11.01.2013 while observing:
"6. ....... The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Emphasis supplied
12. Likewise, in another decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad[WP (C) 10676/2016] dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
13. Thus, as is clear from reading of the above decisions, apart from dissemination of information, no other issue can be entertained under the provisions of the RTI Act. Directions sought by the appellant for initiating demolition action or questioning the demolition of her property entail examination of issues which this Commission is neither empowered nor inclined to do. In any case, facts of the case indicate that the appellant has already approached a number of Courts for adjudication of her disputes and redressal of her grievances pertaining to non-demolition of the property No. L-48C, DDA Janta Flats. The issue as such being lis pendens it is improper to be adjudicated by any other fora and the appellant is thus advised to refrain from forum- shopping with the same subject matter.
Page 10 of 1414. It is noted that the issue of dissemination of information under RTI Act on the same subject matter has already been adjudicated by an earlier Bench of this Commission by a detailed and reasoned decision dated 26.09.2018. Both parties have mentioned the same and the Respondent has submitted a compliance report dated 29.10.2018 which had been submitted in terms of the Commission's earlier order dated 26.09.2018.
Since information as sought by the appellant, has been provided from time to time by the respondent, the appellant has not sought any specific information in her Second Appeals. Though the directions as sought by the appellant in her Second Appeals cannot be granted under RTI Act, in the interest of justice, the Commission directs the respondent to furnish a comprehensive current status report, including the stages of pendency of the various litigation filed by the appellant and respective next dates of hearing etc. This status report shall be submitted by the respondent before the Commission by 30.09.2020, with an advance copy duly marked to the Commission, failing which appropriate legal proceedings shall be initiated for default.
15. Before concluding this decision, the Commission finds it pertinent to point out that examination of the queries raised by the appellant in the aforementioned cases reveal that repetition of the queries has multiplied the number of cases manifold. All of the abovementioned cases originate out of and focus on only one issue, viz. the demolition of an unauthorised construction on the appellant's house. The respondent has acted well within its rights in carrying out the operation and cannot be faulted and hence the appellant has commenced an audit of the functioning of the respondent, questioning as to why remaining similar unauthorised constructions have not been demolished, by a deluge of repetitive questionnaires. The Commission is constrained to observe that this is clearly a misuse of the RTI Act, for settling personal disputes. RTI Act being a welfare legislation was enacted to empower citizens with the power of information, not to be used as a weapon to seek vengeance. The expression "practical regime" mentioned in the very preamble of this welfare legislation cannot be overlooked and must act as a guiding light while reckoning the extent of right to secure access to information. Any right cannot be unbounded or aimless nor can any right be enjoyed without observing the duty and responsibility that comes with it. A right cannot be enforced to such an extent that the underlying objective behind its parent statute gets defeated. A right ought to be exercised with responsibility. Reckless exercise of the right will defeat the purpose of the statute bestowing that right upon the individual. In the facts of the present Appeals, the act of lodging RTI applications en bloc is not in consonance with the object of the statute.
16. The Apex Court had discussed the issue of such voluminous 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:
Page 11 of 14".........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
17. Another decision which discourages such vexatious and frivolous litigation was passed by 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 the Court has while giving its opinion about such vexatious litigation crippling the public authorities,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 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....."Page 12 of 14
Emphasis supplied
18. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar &Ors.[W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed similarly that:
"........Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse toexer cise 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 law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied
19. Among many other noted decisions of the Delhi High Court on this subject, one particularly relevant decision was passed in the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West-B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015], vide its order dated 08.10.2015wherein it was held that:
"8. .....Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is notrequired 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 recognised the problem of misuse of the RTI Act and citizens such as the Appellant need to note that theirright to information is not absolute.
20. Last but not the least, the Apex Court's verdict on this aspect is topically relevant and thus reliance is placed on the ratio expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme CourtinCentral Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.[MANU/SC/0932/2011] in the following words:
37. ..... 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 prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
21. In the light of the above established legal position, the Commission cautions the appellant from filing such an avalanche of frivolous, vexatious and wasteful litigation on the same subject matter, failing which, it is made clear that such repetitive applications will be Page 13 of 14 dismissed without a hearing, on the grounds of them being vexatious and repetitive since such adjudication serves no larger public interest.
The appeals are thus disposed off with the above observations and directions as mentioned in para 14 above.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पं जीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 14 of 14