Central Information Commission
Vipin Punjabi vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. on 23 July, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151443-BJ+
CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151445-BJ
Mr. Vipin Punjabi
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Raigarh Area
South Eastern Coalfields Limited
O/o The Public Information Officer
SECL, Raigarh Area, Behind Collectorate
Chhote Atarmuda, Post Box No.-27
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh - 496001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.07.2020
Date of Decision : 23.07.2020
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151443-BJ Date of RTI application 12.01.2018 CPIO's response 10.02.2018/ 12.06.2018 Date of the First Appeal 13.04.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018 FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the action taken by the General Manager, SECL, Raigarh on the letter dated 13.01.2016 pertaining to the subject: "status of Jampali Opencast Mines"; copy of the aforementioned letter dated 13.01.2016.
Page 1 of 12The CPIO, SECL, Raigarh and Area Sales Manager, Raigarh vide their letters dated 10.02.2018 and 09.02.2018 provided certain information to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to intimate the CPIO regarding the Department/Office where the concerned file is available so that the information sought could be furnished to the Applicant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, Raigarh vide letter dated 12.06.2018 provided one page of information to the Appellant.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/151445-BJ
Date of RTI application 12.01.2018
CPIO's response 10.02.2018/
12.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 13.04.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.08.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to File No. SECL/RGH/SAM/JSA/2015-16/376 DATED 26 June 2015, status of jampali Opencast SECL:
Raigarh Area, action taken by the General Manager, SECL, Raigarh Area, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 10.02.2018 attached one page information, received from the concerned Department. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.05.2018 directed the Area Sales Manager, Raigarh, to intimate the CPIO regarding the Department/Office where the concerned file is available so that the information sought could be furnished to the Applicant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.06.2018, attached one page information to the Applicant as received from the concerned Department, wherein it was informed that the related case file is under observation of the committee member.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vipin Punjabi along with Mr. Natwar Rateriya through VC; Respondent: Mr. Onkar Singh, CPIO, Mr. B. V. B. Reddy, First Appellate Authority and Mr. Yashwant Kumar Soni, Assistant Manager (Mining) through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and stated that no satisfactory information was received by him, till date, in both the matters. He vehemently contested the replies provided by the CPIO and submitted that initially the information sought was denied by stating that "file is under movement as such information is exempted under Section 8(1) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005". And after the directions of the FAA, it was informed that the related case file was under observation of the Committee member, which was contradictory to earlier reply.Page 2 of 12
Therefore, it was alleged that false and misleading replies were furnished by the CPIO which is in contravention to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that all the information held and available in their record was provided to the Appellant. Explaining the background/ genesis of the matter, the Respondent referred to their written submission dated 20.07.2020 and stated that essentially the issue pertained to the representations made by M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. regarding non- forfeiture of the EMD for unlifted/ lapsed quantity on JPL A/c. The proposal was forwarded to SECL, HQ for necessary action but the proposal was returned back for further query. Accordingly, the then General Manager, Raigarh Area had constituted a Committee to re-examine the whole case and recommend accordingly.
Accordingly, the conclusion of the Committee was intimated to M/s Jindal Power Ltd. vide letter no 2310 dated 05.12.2019 and earlier vide another letter no 696 dated 03.08.2018. While stating that the matter essentially pertained to a dispute between the Public Authority and M/s Jindal Power Ltd., the Respondent stated that no larger public interest warranting disclosure of information was justified by the Appellant. In addition he read out his written submission dated 20.07.2020 which is as under:-
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 20.07.2020 wherein it was stated that in compliance with the decisions of the Commission in File Nos 136429, 136430, 136431, 136434, 136435, 136436, 136437 and 136438, information was provided by them vide letters dated 653382 dated 09.10.2019 and 653381 dated 09.10.2019 sent through email. Thereafter, the Respondent provided the details of the information provided by them in compliance to the orders of the Commission in 15 earlier matters file numbers as mentioned below:-
1. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136429, one page information was provided vide letter no. 667 dated 10.12.2019;
2. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136437, one page information was provided vide letter no. 171 dated 09.11.2019; Again two pages information was provided vide letter no.
2083 dated 12.12.2019;
3. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136430, one page information was provided vide letter no. 1129 dated 19.05.2015; Again five pages information was provided vide letter no. 2206 dated 26.02.2020;
4. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136437, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2112 dated 02.01.2020;
5. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136428, one page information was provided vide letter no. 2076 dated 12.12.2019;
Page 3 of 126. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136434, one page information was provided vide letter no. 2037 dated 20.11.2019; Again one page information was provided vide letter no. 2087 dated 12.12.2019;
7. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136433, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2084 dated 12.12.2019;
8. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136438, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2081 dated 12.12.2019;
9. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136436, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2113 dated 02.01.2020;
10. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136431, one page information was provided vide letter no. 2035 dated 20.11.2019; Again two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2086 dated 12.12.2019;
11. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136427, three pages information was provided vide letter no. 2102 dated 26.12.2019;
12. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135119, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2082 dated 12.12.2019;
13. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135120, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2085 dated 12.12.2019;
14. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135117, two pages information was provided vide letter no. 2074 dated 12.12.2019; Again five pages information was provided vide letter no. 2206 dated 26.02.2020;
15. In File No. CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135118, one page information was provided vide letter no. 2078 dated 12.12.2019;
The Respondent stated that in addition to the above, in file nos 136434, 136431 and 136437, 02 pages of information was provided vide letter number 2089 dated 14.12.2019. Moreover, in file nos 135119, 135120, 136433, 136438, 136434 and 136431, 04 pages of information was again provided to the Appellant. Furthermore, in File nos 136436 and 136435, 02 pages of information was again provided to the Appellant. In addition, it was stated that the matter pertained to a dispute between M/s SECL and Jindal Power Limited and that all information pertaining to M/s Jindal Power Limited was already provided vide letter numbers 2310 and 696.
On being queried if the copy of the written submission sent to the Commission was also forwarded to the Appellant, the Respondent replied in the negative but assured to forward the same expeditiously, if so directed by the Commission.
Page 4 of 12On being queried by the Commission regarding the larger public interest involved in disclosure of information, no satisfactory response was offered by the Appellant who made a feeble submission that it was a 5 ½ years old matter pertaining to allegation of corruption against the Public Authority. On being further questioned if he had approached the CVO/ CVC/ ED/CBI/ any other judicial forum or higher official in the Public Authority, till date, the Appellant stated that in the intervening period they tried to take up the matter with higher authorities in Respondent Public Authority but no satisfactory action was taken on their grievance resulting in filing the RTI applications. The Commission further queried whether any court case pending adjudication in the matter, the Appellant replied in the negative.
Having heard both the parties at length and on perusal of the available records, the Commission at the outset referred to definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."Page 5 of 12
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature;
secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
Moreover, on being queried by the Commission regarding any complaint/ representation made by the Appellant before the CVO/ CVC/ ED/CBI/ any other judicial forum or higher official in Page 6 of 12 the Public Authority, till date no satisfactory response was offered by the Appellant to substantiate his claims regarding corruption/ irregularities within the Public Authority. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim in the matter of Sancha Bahadur Subba vs. State of Sikkim W.P. (C) 31/2017 dated 30.04.2018 wherein it was held as under:
"30. What concludes therefore from the gamut of discussions herein above is that in a given case information pertaining to assets and liabilities can be disclosed with the rider that there must be larger public interest involved justifying such disclosure. As can be culled out from the averments and submissions, the Petitioner herein suspects that the Respondent No. 5 is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, however mere suspicion without any prima facie material to substantiate it does not justify the disclosure of such information of the Respondent No. 5 as rests with the concerned government authority. This situation indeed appears to be a fishing expedition embarked upon by the Petitioner without any bona fide public interest. In these circumstances, it obtains that disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and falls under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."
Filing such repeated RTI applications by a petitioner with twisted or similar queries is held misuse of RTI Act in repeated court-verdicts like of Delhi High Court mentioned hereunder:
1. Verdict dated 19.01.2016 (WPC 406/2016) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Smt Valsa Sara Mathew and others"
2. Verdict dated 05.02.2014 (WPC 845/2014) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Sanjeev Kumar and others"
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shail Sahni versus Smt Valsa Sara Mathew and others in WPC 406/2016 dated 19.01.2016 held as under:
"Since, despite the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner is still filing general, irrelevant and vague queries, this Court dismisses the present writ petition with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi within a period of three weeks."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar and Ors in W.P. (C) 845/2014 dated 05.02.2014 held as under:
"6. In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still................
10. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that Page 7 of 12 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. A copy of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important and valuable rights upon a citizen."
A reference can also be made to the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kishan Lal Gera vs. State Information Commission, Haryana and Ors. CWP No. 20192 of 2014 dated 16.10.2014 wherein the Court while imposing cost of Rs. 30,000/- on the petitioner the Court held as under:
"However, petitioner still did not feel satisfied. That is why instant writ petition, which is frivolous on the face of it, has been filed before this Court. Petitioner seems to be obsessed with his rights only and is showing total ignorance towards his duties. Further, petitioner is claiming himself to be above board in all respect, whereas he is not exercising even the minimum possible restraint on himself, while leveling ill founded and serious allegations against respondent authorities. In his petition, he has said more than once that respondent No.3 is a habitual offender but he did not implead him by name, so that he may defend himself against allegations of malafide. In view of the abovesaid factual background, it is unhesitatingly held that petitioner is neither a bonafide litigant nor he had any cause of action to file and maintain instant writ petition, which amounts to blatant misuse of process of law and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
................. Consequently, instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs which are quantified at `30,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the Secretary, Haryana State Legal Services Authority Haryana, within three months from today."
Responding to such numerous RTI applications would disproportionately diversifies the resources of the Public Authority for which kind attention of the Appellant was drawn towards the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"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 Page 8 of 12 the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
The Commission also observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 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 had held as under:
"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."
Furthermore, 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 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. 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."
Moreover, in a recent 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.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of Page 9 of 12 examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
The Commission noted that similar-subject matter had been heard and adjudicated by it in File No(s). CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136431 decided on 24.10.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136438 decided on 24.10.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136429 decided on 24.10.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136433 decided on 24.10.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136434 decided on 24.10.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136430 decided on 24.10.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135118 decided on 25.10.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135119 decided on 25.10.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135117 decided on 25.10.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/135120 decided on 25.10.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136427 decided on 25.10.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136428 decided on 25.10.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136437 decided on 06.11.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136436 decided on 06.11.2019; CIC/SECFL/A/2018/136435 decided on 06.11.2019;
Page 10 of 12DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum. The Respondent is however instructed to forward a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email, as agreed.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा णत स या पत ित)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 23.07.2020
Page 11 of 12
Copy to:-
1. The CMD, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Post Box No. - 64, Bilaspur - 495006 (with the advice that a sensitization and familiarization exercise regarding the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 needs to be undertaken forthwith within the Public Authority as in 29 such matters heard by the Commission today, the Commission observed that the officials of the Respondent Public Authority were not fully conversant with its provisions. Although the matters were discussed and decided as per extant provisions, the awareness of the Public Authority officials in respect of the RTI Act, 2005 needs to be strengthened forthwith. ) Page 12 of 12