Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Ordnance Factory Board on 11 March, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/OFBKO/C/2018/100130/SD+
CIC/OFBKO/C/2017/154630/SD
Varun Krishna .... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ordnance Factory Nalanda,
Distt - Rajgir,
Bihar - 803121. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 13/07/2017 19/06/2017
CPIO replied on : 27/07/2017 05/07/2017 & 24/07/2017
First appeal filed on : 07/08/2017 24/07/2017
First Appellate : 19/09/2017 No order
Authority order
Complaint dated : 28/12/2017 29/07/2017
Date of Hearing : 05/03/2019 05/03/2019
Date of Decision : 05/03/2019 05/03/2019
Information sought:
File No. CIC/OFBKO/C/2018/100130/SD The Complainant sought daily progress report as well as action taken report on his email dated 05.06.2017 related to rejection of material.
File No. CIC/OFBKO/C/2017/154630/SD The Complainant sought information through 8 points regarding pending payment for Invoice no.67 dated 23.03.2017 after confirmation of Bank Guarantee DT2GPGE 170030007 dated 15.04.2017.1
Grounds for the Complaint(s):
The RTI Applications were rejected on the basis of erroneously drawn IPO(s), even so, the IPO(s) were drawn in the name of the Accounts Officer.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Represented by Jitender Kumar in person.
Respondent: Sudhanshu Prasad, DGM & CPIO, Ordnance Factory Nalanda, Distt - Rajgir, Bihar present through VC.
CPIO submitted that the Complainant was requested to submit the fees in favour of General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Nalanda, however, he did not comply with the said requirement. CPIO further submitted that the IPO was in favour of the Accounts Officer of Local Accounts office which comes under Principal Controller of Accounts (Fys), Kolkata and the same was not creditable to the account of General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Nalanda.
Commission inquired if the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Nalanda is the Accounts Officer for their office, to which; CPIO submitted that it is not. He further added that however, their website clearly mentions that IPOs should be drawn in favour of General Manager.
CPIO also wanted to bring the attention of the bench to the repetitive nature of the RTI Applications being filed by the Complainant. It was submitted that the Complainant is a supplier of Ordnance Factory, Nalanda and despite the payments made to his firm as per terms and conditions of the respective contracts; Complainant has got into a habit of airing his grievances through a number of RTI Applications. CPIO expressed his anguish over the humiliating mannerisms of the Complainant displayed in pursuance of his RTI Applications and that he ridicules the CPIO and goes to the extent of making incessant phone calls to the office. CPIO pointed out that the Complainant has a set of cyclostyled questionnaire which he keeps filing with reference to different invoice numbers. CPIO urged the Commission to look into the menace created by the Complainant and sought guidance in similar cases in future as it was alleged that responding to Complainant's RTI Applications costs them disproportionate diversion of man hours of factory work.2
File No : CIC/OFBKO/C/2018/100130/SD+ CIC/OFBKO/C/2017/154630/SD Decision Commission observes that the CPIO grossly erred in rejecting the RTI Application even so the IPO accompanied with it was filed as per the provisions of Rule 6(b) of RTI Rules, 2012. It is pertinent to note that when the CPIO has particularly clarified during the hearing that the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Nalanda is not their Accounts Officer, it is ostensibly unreasonable on the part of the Respondent office to insist on IPOs to be drawn in favour of General Manager. Now, the fact that the Respondent office has published in public domain that IPO(s) are to be drawn in favour of General Manager does not absolve them from complying with the requirement mandated in Rule 6 of RTI Rules, 2012. It is incumbent on the Respondent office to adequately arrange for a system in place to credit IPOs drawn in favour of Accounts Officer.
Nonetheless, Commission does not find any malafide intention on the part of the CPIO in having rejected the RTI Application as he has urged that he was only following the extant rules of the Respondent office. In the circumstances, Commission cannot hold the CPIO singularly responsible for the ignorance of the provisions of RTI Act. In other words, the instant case reflects on the collective failure of the Respondent office in adhering to the provisions of RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing, Commission directs the CPIO to place this order before their competent authority to immediately look into the aforesaid issue and to take corrective steps to ensure that IPOs drawn in favour of Accounts Officer is accepted by the CPIO in future.
A copy of this order is marked to the DGOF & Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board to take note of the adverse observations of the Commission and to ensure expedited action in the matter.
Now, Commission based on earlier Appeals/Complaints of the Complainant as well as 9 other cases being heard simultaneously today observes that the CPIO is right in pointing out that Complainant is in a habit of filing multiple RTI Applications seeking similar information. A bare perusal of these case records suggests that Complainant has resorted to the channel of RTI Act to merely address issues related to contracts/works executed by his firm. Presumably, this 3 spree of filing RTI Applications is to pressurize the public authorities into settling his varied grievances which amounts to a gross misuse of RTI Act. This bench of the Commission has alone dealt with a dozen cases of the Complainant filed on similar subject matters with different public authorities. The broad heads of subject matter include aspects of tender processes; rejection of material; work execution and payments thereof related information.
It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality. However, adverting to cases such as this where the intention of the RTI Applicant is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that it is to only pester the public authorities, the notion of misuse of RTI Act well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments is relevant such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). 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 4 File No : CIC/OFBKO/C/2018/100130/SD+ CIC/OFBKO/C/2017/154630/SD 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 prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."
In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required 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."
A more lucid rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"...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 5 File No : CIC/OFBKO/C/2018/100130/SD+ CIC/OFBKO/C/2017/154630/SD 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."
"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 beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
The aforesaid dicta essentially proves that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized bane and citizens such as the Complainant should take note that their right to information is not afterall absolute. Keeping this in view, Commission advises the Complainant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future. CPIO is also advised to deal with any future RTI Applications of the Complainant on subject matters emanating from the above discussed grievances in accordance with the aforesaid observations of the Commission.
The Complaint(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
6
File No : CIC/OFBKO/C/2018/100130/SD+
CIC/OFBKO/C/2017/154630/SD
Copy to:
DGOF & Chairman
Ordnance Factory Board,
Ministry of Defence
10-A, SK Bose Road, KOLKATA- 700 001
--(For taking note of the adverse remarks of the Commission and to ensure corrective steps as above) 7