Central Information Commission
Mrmaniram Sharma vs Department Of Justice on 13 February, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/C/2014/900110
Maniram Sharma v Dept of Justice, M/o Law & Justice
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 3.4.2013 Reply: 20.6.2013 Time:
FAA: 15.5.2013 FAO: Time:
Complaint: 3.2.2014 Hearing:2812015 Decision: 13022015
Compliance
Result: Dismissed
Observation: Repetition of RTI
Parties Present:
The complainant is present for videoconference at NIC centre, Churu. The
Public Authority is represented by Mr. S.Vijay Gopal, US and Mr. M.P.Singh,
US.
Information sought:
2. Complainant sought for Copy of rules, regulation ordinance applicable on the officers at all level; Noting on his letter dt 31.3.213, file noting and other related document pertaining to it; Compliance of section 4(1)(b)(ii) by the department, Detail of the Official of the department who are competent to make changes in the rules/regulations of the department etc Ground of First Appeal:
3. Nonfurnishing of information sought by the appellant within the prescribed period.
CPIO reply (After First Appeal):
4. PIO stated that as far as Point No. 3,9,10 & 12 of the RTI application was concerned the application/letter was not received in the Justice departments monitoring cell and in relation to the others points he stated that the information sought was not related to the department.
Ground for Complaint:
5. That the PIO has not provided Complete information to the Complainant, he has also not complied with the provisions of Section 4 (1)(b)(i) to Sec 4 (1)(b)(xvii) of the RTI Act.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
6. The complainant made his submissions through videoconference from Churu.
The respondent authority made their submissions. They represented that it is a complaint about nonfurnishing of information, which has already been furnished in response to the RTI application which was heard and decided by the Commission in an earlier file No.CIC/SS/C/2013/900459SA dated 5112014. The respondent authority presented a set of papers in this regard, which were also dispatched to the complainant already. The Commission also notes that point no 912 of the RTI application has already been dealt in case number CIC/SA/A/2014/900703. The Commission heard second appeals in cases number CIC/SA/A/2014/900704, CIC/SA/A/2014/900708, and CIC/SA/C/2014/900095, the order rejecting them on the ground of abuse and repetition need to be read with this order as this is a complaint for not furnishing the information. It is atrocious to seek penalty on officers in an abusive RTI request which is repeated. Strictly speaking the appellant has to pay costs to the public authority for wasting their time with several repetitions.
7. Having heard the submission and having gone through the said papers, the commission considers that the complainant has repeated the same RTI application which was already decided by the Commission. Hence the Commission dismisses the complaint recording an admonition against complainant for repetitive abuse of RTI.
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar
1. The CPIO under the RTI Act, Government of India Department of Justice, Jaisalmar House, Mansingh Road New Delhi110011.
2. Shri Maniram Sharma Behind Roadway Depot, Sardarshahar, District: Churu, Rajasthan331403