Central Information Commission
Meena Pandey vs Border Road Organisation on 13 March, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BRDOR/A/2022/154707
Meena Pandey .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
BRO Head Quarter, DTE General Roads,
Seema Sadak Bhawan, Ring Road,
Delhi Cantt, New Delhi - 110011 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06-03-2024
Date of Decision : 12-03-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22-07-2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 10-09-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 23-09-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09-11-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.07.2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 5
"Kindky provide the following information pertaining to your department, with regard to the Grade & Quality of Bitumen used in the road's construction by BRO.
1. Details of the Quality and Grade of Bitumen used in the roads, in different areas of the Country (Plains and hills).
2. Details and methods of the procurement of Bitumen.
3. Details of the Roads Constructed by the BRO team in the year 2017-18 to 2019-20.
4. Details of the Roads constructed by the construction company for BRO in the year 2017- 18 to 2019-20.
5. Details of the yearly expenditure by the BRO, for making new roads and renewal/repairing of the roads, for the year 2017-18 to 2019-20."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.09.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 23.09.2022, held as under:
"2 It is to inform you that as per Section 24 of Chapter-VI (item 21 of Second of RTI Act 2005, Border Roads Organisation being an executive arm of BRDB (Now MoD (BR) is exempted from operation of RTI Act 2005 except in case of corruption/violation of human rights. Therefore, RTI Act 2005 does not apply to BRO except in case of corruption and human right violations.
3. As per RTI Act 2005, information readily available in material form can be provided. Actions like compilation or to collate or to create any information have no scope in the RTI Act.
4. As per CIC decision dated 13 Jul 2010 pronounced in the case file No CIC/LS/A/2010/000492 titled Shri Ashok Kumar Vs GREF, Pune, Border Roads has immune to provide the information related to the technical matter.
5. On examining the said appeal under RTI Act 2005, it is found that the information as sought by you relates to Road/Bridge construction which is strategically important in nature and a matter of national security as BRO is engaged for construction/maintenance of Road/Bridge in strategic Border Roads in far flung area of country for Armed Forces, meant for Defence purpose, hence data as sought cant not be shared.
6. The undersigned being the first Appellate Authority (RTI) has perused your case related to RTI request dated 22 Jul 2022 preferred by you, it is to inform that Page 2 of 5 despite of exemption under RTI Act 2005, CPIO has tried to obtain the relevant details with concerned office and relevant information has been furnished to you accordingly. The decision/reply of the CPIO of this HQ as furnished to you vide letter No. 11022/DGBR/Appin/57/RTI Cell dated 08 Aug 2022 is appropriate and in order, within the purview of RTI Act, 2005, which needs no intervention."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Ms. Meena Pandey, attended the hearing. Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar, Executive Engineer (Civil) & CPIO and Shri Manoj Kumar, Office Superintendent, attended the hearing.
The Appellant stated that she has received the relevant information from the Respondent.
The Respondent submitted that though their organisation is exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act, but upon receiving the hearing notice from the Commission, they have voluntarily provided the information to the Appellant.
A written submission has been received from Shri Sunil Kumar, Executive Engineer (Civil) & CPIO, vide letter dated 04.03.2024 and the same has been taken on record.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission is of the view that despite being an organisation exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act, an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent which is appreciated. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
Be that as it may, the Commission finds it pertinent to mention that more than 15 cases of the same Appellant have already been heard and disposed of by another bench of this Commission. It is also worth noting that 21 Second Appeals was listed on 06.03.2024, for hearing which shows that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications with different public authority. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose Page 3 of 5 primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising her Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
The Commission further finds it expedient to note the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the purpose of carrying out her research work through instrumentality of RTI which is likely to clog the RTI channels and thus, depriving the ordinary citizen to exercise their right to information. Further, the PIOs are already doing this assignment under the RTI Act in addition to their normal duties. In this regard, the Commission would like to draw attention of the parties towards a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a detailed manner. The relevant extract of ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017 is as under:
"..... Under the provisions of the RTI Act, while the CPIO/PIO is obliged to facilitate free flow of information to the citizen, it is equally incumbent upon the information seeker to put his/her application in the simplest form possible so that CPIO/PIO can understand the request unambiguously. The Commission is also mindful of the fact that the unenviable noble duty assigned under the RTI Act to Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) and First Appellate Authorities (FAA) by the respective Public Authorities is 'in addition to their normal duties and without any additional remuneration paid for the same' for which they must devote extra efforts, time, and energy..."
The Appellant is therefore cautioned to exercise her right to information in an informed and judicious manner.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date 12-03-2024 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5