Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 31 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : (Total -14 cases)
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/621356 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620946
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/621358 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620964
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620967 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620969
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620971 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620973
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620974 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620979
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620980 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620982
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620983 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/629377
RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY ....शिकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/O Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Aaykar Bhawan, Rabindra Path,
Hazaribagh - 825301 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.05.2024
Date of Decision : 24.05.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The abovementioned Complaints have been clubbed together for the sake of
brevity and disposal as these are based on similar RTI Applications of the
same complainant.
Page 1 of 16
Relevant facts emerging from complaints:
RTI application filed on : 13.04.2020, 28.01.2022, 02.04.2022
CPIO replied on : 16.05.2024, 21.05.2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.04.2023, 15.06.2023, 24.06.2023
Information sought:
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/621356 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/621358 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me with the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribagh.
1. Total Arrear Tax demand outstanding as on 01-01-2020.
2. Total Tax collected out of Sl.1 above during the month of January,2020."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 16.05.2024 by stating as under -
"The ITO Ward-1(3), Hazaribagh and ITO Ward-1(4), Hazaribagh have been merged with ITO Ward-1(1), Hazaribagh and the RTI applications on the same issues were also received in the O/o the ITO Ward-1(1) Hazaribagh. The ITO Ward-1(1), Hazaribagh has already submitted the reply of these RTI applications.
Further, it is also submitted that the Honble CIC, New Delhi has also given its judgement on 26.03.2024 on these same RTI applications. The copy of same is enclosed for your reference."
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620946 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2020 seeking the following information:
Page 2 of 16"Kindly provide me with the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribag.
1. Number of cases in which penalty u/s 271(1)(b) have been imposed During the month of January,2020.
2. Total amount of penalty as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under - Contents of the Application: Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act, 2005.
Information Sought Reply
1. Number of cases in which penalty u/s 271(1)(b) have NIL been imposed during the month of January, 2020.
2. Total amount of penalty as at sl. I above. NIL CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620964 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me with the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribag.
1. Number of cases in which Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) have been imposed during the month of January,2020.
2. Amount of Penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
Contents of the Application: Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act, 2005.
Information Sought Reply
1. Number of cases in which penalty u/s 271(1)(C) have NIL been imposed during the month of January, 2020.
2. Total amount of penalty as at sl. I above. NIL Page 3 of 16 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620967 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620969 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribag.
1. Number of cases in which Penalty u/s 271D have been imposed during the month of January,2020.
2. Amount of Penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
Contents of the Application: Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act, 2005.
Information Sought Reply
1. Number of cases in which penalty u/s 271A have been NIL imposed during the month of January, 2020.
2. Total amount of penalty as at sl. I above. NIL CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620971 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620973 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me with the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribag.
1. Number cases in which Penalty u/s 271B have been imposed during the month of January,2020.
2. Amount of Penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
Contents of the Application: Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act, 2005.
Page 4 of 16Information Sought Reply
1. Number of cases in which penalty u/s 271B have been NIL imposed during the month of January, 2020.
2. Total amount of penalty as at sl. I above. NIL CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620974 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620978 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me with the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribag.
1. Total Number of RTI applications filed during the month of January,2020."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
Contents of the Application: Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act, 2005.
Information Sought Reply
1. Total number of RTI application filed during the month NIL of January, 2020.
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620979 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620980 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me with the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribag.
1. Number of cases in which Penalty u/s 271A have been imposed during the month of January,2020.
2. Amount of Penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
Page 5 of 16Contents of the Application: Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act, 2005.
Information Sought Reply
1. Total number of cases in which penalty u/s 271A have NIL been imposed during the month of January. 2020.
2. Total amount of penalty as at sl. I above. NIL CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620982 CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620983 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me with the following information under RTI Act,2005 in respect of JCIT, Range-1, Hazaribag.
1. Number of cases in which penalties under section 221 of the I.T. Act have been imposed during the month of January,2020.
2. Amount of penalty imposed as at sl.1 above."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 21.05.2024 by stating as under -
Contents of the Application: Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act, 2005.
Information Sought Reply
1. Total number of cases in which penalty u/s 221 have NIL been imposed during the month of January, 2020.
2. Total amount of penalty as at sl. I above. NIL Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaints.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-Page 6 of 16
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Represented by Shri Shashi Bhushan, ITO Ward 1(1)-cum-CPIO, Hazaribagh present through video-conference.
Written submissions dated 21.05.2024 filed by the Respondent is taken on record, contents of which are reproduced herein below -
"Ref.: CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620946 dated 09.05.2024, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620979, 620980 and 620983 dated 06.05.2024 of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Sri Vinod Kumar Tiwari.
Ref.: Total 8 cases CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620964, CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/620967, 620969, 620971, 620973, 620974, 620978 and 620982 dated 06.05.2024 of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Sri Vinod Kumar Tiwari. Kindly refer to the above.
In connection with the above, it has to intimate that there is a hearing notice has been received in the office of the undersigned today i.e. 20.05.2024 in respect to the application made by Sri R.R.Tripathy under section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005. On perusal of the same, it is noticed that the applicant has filed application u/s 18 of the RTI Act for non-receiving of reply of his application of RTI dated 13.04.2020 which is filed to the then CPIO, Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(3) and 1(4), Hazaribagh. In this regard, reply is being submitted on behalf of Prabhakar Prasad, ITO and Uma Shankar Singh, ITO and following points has to be submitted for kind perusal:
1. The applicant has filed RTI petition on 13.04.2020 which has been forwarded by CCIT, (CCA) Patna.
2. The applicant has filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act 2005.
3. The applicant has not filed the appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. the then JCIT, R-1, Hazaribagh.
4. The applicant is and has been filing excessive number of RTI's thereby creating undue pressure on the CPIO which can be seen from the past records of the Hon'ble CIC. This is wastage of public money through RTI petition and appeal/complaint which is baseless and purposeless.
5. The applicant has filed the complaint after more than 03 years and 11 months. This shows that the complaint has been filed for personal vendetta to create a ruckus and harass the CPIO as the same RTI has been filed before most of the CPIOs of this department all over India. Flooding of similar RTI petitions Page 7 of 16 to harass the CPIO is not permissible under the Act, as held in the following judgment of the Hon'ble CIC:
I. As held in the case of Pushpa vs. Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, complaint no. CIC/PB/C/2008/00304, 00310, 00866 and 00868 decided on 24.11.2008, this Act as an instrument, cannot be used either to harass or to obstruct the II. In the case of Ramesh Chandra vs. Ashok Kumar Shukla, appeal no. CIC/OK/A/2008/01135 decided on 28.01.2009, the CIC categorically laid down that an information cannot be given if it is sought with a view to public authority.
III. In the case of Ashish Kumar Khare vs. Fishery Survey of India, F.No. CIC/8/A/2006/00336 decided on 25.10.2006 the CIC held as under:- "The aim is not to seek real information but to trouble others and to harass; to derive some strange vicarious pleasure by causing annoyance mostly to superior officers. That is how the commission is frequently hearing appeals in which the government employee deliberately loads the public authority with question which do not meet stringent definition of information and show on. No replies satisfy him and all appeals end up on the commissions table Such types of frivolous petitions are liable to be rejected.
IV. Section 8 does not mean that the public authority is required to entertain all sorts of frivolous applications. (S.K.Lal vs. Ministry of railways, Appeal No- CIC/OK/A/2006/00268/272 decided on 29.12.2006 by CIC.
V. The complainant obtained huge amount of information relating to his grievances through 24 applications. He was advised to refrain from using RTI Act with a vengeance as cost of servicing frivolous applications are unduly huge Appeal disposed off. Lt. P. Azad vs. Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), appeal no. CICIMAIC/2007/00015 dated 14.05.2007.J VI. The appellant seeking almost similar information repeatedly indicates that he is misusing the RTI provision with a view to harass the public authority. Appeal dismissed. [Ashok M Pandya Vs. Bank of India, appeal no. 1419/ICPB/2008, dated 05.02.2008.J VII. The commission observed that the appellant, ex-employee of the organization did not carry very good performance report. He is taking recourse to the RTI to harass the Department /Shripal Jain Vs. North Western Rly, case no. CIC/OKIC/2007/00567 dated 09.05.2008.J Page 8 of 16
6. All RTI petitions filed are multiple/obnoxious/harassing/time consuming and time wasting/purposeless/frivolous/baseless/useless/repeated/functioning of a public authority.
7. Direct filing of appeals/complaint to CIC ignoring FAA, for frivolous RTI petition is nothing but wasting of time and energy of the public authority.
8. The same RTI has been filed by the applicant several times and reply has been given to the applicant. The applicant Shri Radha Raman Tripathi had sought information through his RTI application dated 13.04.2020. The following information is being given to the applicant as per registration number:
xxx xxx xxx As above facts that proper information has been made available in respect of all the information sought by the applicant. Due to the office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) and 1(4), Hazaribagh has been merged with ITO, Ward-1(1), Hazaribagh and I have assumed charge as ITO Ward-1(1). Hazaribagh on 28.08.2021 and due to ward merger, change in Login-ID as well as delay in information related to this, the reply was provided late for which I apologize."
The Respondent added that Complainant is a habitual RTI applicant who filed numerous RTI applications to harass the Respondent Public Authority to clog the working system. He urged the Commission to intervene in the matter and take some action against this misconduct of the complainant.
Decision The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondents and perusal of the records, notes that all the RTI applications have been replied to by the respondent. After receipt of hearing notices, the respondent had revisited all the RTI applications, and provided updated reply/information to the complainant as per available records vide their letters dated 21.05.2024 and copies of the same are placed on record. The factual positions in the above matters have already been informed to the complainant that NIL information is available with the Respondent. The Commission further observes that there is a substantial delay in providing reply to the Complainant on the above-mentioned RTI applications, for which the Respondent informed the bench that owing to merging and restructuring of Page 9 of 16 their various office the online RTI Applications were not accessible on account of non-availability of online RTI access ID and password, therefore, the above- mentioned RTI applications were not attended within the mandated period. The Respondent apologized for the same and assured that such lapses would not recur in future.
The Commission further observes that the complainant has not filed any first appeal in the above-mentioned cases and reasons for the same could not be ascertained as he was not present before the Commission despite notice. The Complainant neither filed any written objections nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondents and further agitate the matter. The Complainant in his above-mentioned complaints failed to establish any mala fide on part of the Respondents in replying to the RTI applications or for withholding the information, if any.
Further, the Commission is not inclined to accept the prayer of the Complainant to impose penalty as well as for recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned CPIOs in the absence of any mala fide on part of the Respondent. The conduct of the Complainant shows his intention to pressurize the CPIO with the fear of penal action than actual delivery of information to him.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 2000 cases of the same Complainant against same and different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that a total number of 118 complaints cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing and the same have been heard together simultaneously. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications with minor changes apparently to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has grossly Page 10 of 16 misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
Here, the Commission would also like to recall its earlier observations made in bunch matter of the same Complainant in case File Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2021/630320 and Others decided on 21.02.2024; and CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/659908 and Others decided on 23.02.2024 wherein it was held as under -
"....the Commission finds it pertinent to mention that today 100 Complaints of the Complainant are being heard so that he does not have to appear frequently in the hearing on different dates and his time and resource are saved besides saving him from inconvenience. On one hand, the Commission is devoting very substantive time on his cases, but the Complainant by choosing to be absent in the hearing, has adopted a very casual, in fact, irresponsible act.
The scope of adjudication in the above-mentioned complaints filed under Section 18 of RTI Act, 2005 is limited to ascertaining whether the information has been denied with any mala fide intention or without any reasonable cause by the Respondent. The Commission observes that firstly, the replies given by the Respondent on above-mentioned RTI applications are within the stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Secondly, the information available on record has already been provided to the Complainant.
The Complainant in his above-mentioned complaints has not explained the deficiency in the information provided. The Commission further observed that merely stating that the reply given is not satisfactory is not sufficient grounds to take action against the Respondent under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
Regarding imposition of penalty to the CPIO/PIO under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs. WP(C) 3114/2007 vide order dated 03.12.2007 held that:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two-year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the public 4 information officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of the information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the petitioner has not been able to Page 11 of 16 demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act cannot be issued....."
Emphasis supplied Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it." In view of the above, the Commission finds that there is no mala fide on part of the respondent while replying to the RTI application. That being so, and in the absence of any merit in the complaint, the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1200 cases of the same Complainant against same/another Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Complaints listed for today's hearing have been heard together along with other 74 matters of the Complainant simultaneously and the Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the time span of information sought in each of his RTI Applications apparently to pressurize the public authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
It appears that the Complainant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter-Page 12 of 16
productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in 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:
".........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 It is also pertinent to note that 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] has also given its opinion about such vexatious and repetitive litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI Page 13 of 16 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....."
Emphasis supplied The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar observations:
"....... 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 In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...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..."
Emphasis supplied In view of this, the Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Page 14 of 16 Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated.
Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated. The Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter. "
The Complainant has not been judicious in the use of RTI Act and has been using it as a tool to harass the Public Authority. The Complainant is therefore cautioned to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner."
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the Complainant as he is not abiding by the repetitive advice of the Commission and filing repetitive similar RTI Applications which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.Page 15 of 16
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty- five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
In view of the above-said observations, the Commission finds no mala fide on part of the CPIOs. Further, the Commission, like on several occasions in the past, again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it as a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.
Lastly, in the light of the Respondent's submission during the hearing, he is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With these observations, the instant Complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्ि) Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाणणत सत्यापित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 16 of 16 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)