Central Information Commission
Rachhpal Singh Saini vs Aiims, Rishikesh on 5 December, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AIMRS/A/2023/655033
Shri Rachhpal Singh Saini ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
AIIMS, Rishikesh
Date of Hearing : 02.12.2024
Date of Decision : 02.12.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.08.2023
PIO replied on : 17.09.2023
First Appeal filed on : 04.10.2023
First Appellate Order on : 16.11.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.08.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"I am writing with a profound sense of responsibility, advocating the ideals of public welfare and progress in healthcare at AIIMS Rishikesh. I kindly request your esteemed assistance in providing comprehensive information regarding critical IT equipment, including computers, printers, laptops, UPS systems, and printer ink, at AIIMS Rishikesh premises.
I believe that this request, aligned with the principles of transparency and accountability, will contribute substantially to enhancing the quality of services and furthering the institution mission for excellence in healthcare.
In the spirit of clarity and understanding, I humbly request the following details:
Inventory Overview:
a) The number of computers, printers, laptops, UPS systems, and printer ink currently in use across all AIIMS Rishikesh premises, including the Academics faculty.
Equipment Status:
a) The count of equipment that is operational and in good working condition, including computers, printers, laptops, UPS systems, and printer ink..
Page 1
b) The count of equipment that is currently undergoing maintenance, along with the details of the maintenance process.
c) The count of equipment that is not functional or has exceeded repair limits, including computers, printers, laptops, UPS systems, and printer ink.
Pricing Details:
a) The current pricing details of all computers, printers, laptops, UPS systems, and printer ink in use at AIIMS Rishikesh premises, including the Academics faculty.
b) Pricing details of ongoing maintenance and repairs for computers, printers, laptops, UPS systems, and printer ink in use at AIIMS Rishikesh premises, including the Academics faculty.
c) Pricing details of non-functional or beyond-repair computers, printers, laptops, UPS systems, and printer ink in use at AIIMS Rishikesh premises, including the Academics faculty. Vendor Information:
a) Details of the vendor from whom AIIMS Rishikesh procures all the computers, printers, laptops, UPS systems, and printer ink currently in use. b) The rates offered by this vendor for new IT equipment currently in use.
Repair Cost and Vendor Selection:
a) Price details for repairing all IT equipment currently in use, along with the vendor information.
b) An explanation for choosing this particular vendor for repair, especially if they offer competitive rates.
c) Price details from other vendors for repair, as well as the cost of acquiring new IT equipment currently in use."
The CPIO, AIIMS, Rishikesh vide letter dated 17.09.2023 replied as under:-
"The information sought regarding number of computers, printers, Laptops, UPS System and printer are available on hard copy in 79 pages. You are therefore, request to kindly deposit ₹158/- (One Hundred Fifty-Eight Rupees) in the form of Indian Postal Order or banker cheque, payable to CPIO/Account AIIMS Rishikesh at ₹2/- per pages for charges to provide desired information under Rule 4(a) of RTI Rules. Rest information's are voluminous. Hence applicant may visit to inspect desired permitted documents with prior permission of SPCSO."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.10.2023. The FAA vide order dated 16.11.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 'Nil' has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
1. Applicant Mr Rachhpal Singh Saini has evolved a strange and unwarranted practice of sending repeated emails to strongly follow up his RTI and First Appeals and marking the same to Page 2 many highly ranked officials of central / State Govts. and AIIMS Rishikesh in addition to Hon'ble Ministers and other non-
concerning persons in violation of legal procedure prescribed under RTi Act and rules made therein for filing first and second appeals,
2. Furthermore, the language used in such emails is found to be misleading, motivated, stereotype, unwarranted, stigmatic, intimidating, defamatory with baseless and motivated allegations upon CPIO, AIIMS Rishikesh and other senior officials from time to time. Few such emails are enclosed as Annexure-'E'. Applicant is not stopping such spamming work in spite of various replies sent to him to restrain from such practice, one of which is enclosed as Annexure-'F'. It is most humbly submitted that such practice needs to be addressed and discouraged by the esteemed office of Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner under RTI Act - New Delhi.
3. Applicant Mr Rachhpal Singh Saini has filed more than 203 RTIs and 144 Appeals before FAA in AIIMS Rishikesh (many of them being repetitive and/or frivolous in nature), it is self-evident that the applicant is misusing the RTI law for some mischievous reasons, best known to him. Needless to mention that on previous occasions, various competent courts have held that disclosure of information to the repetitive applicants for their private purpose which promotes their private interest but not the public interest causes substantial harm to the legitimate aim of the Right to Information Act,
4. The public authority is compelled to spend most of the time in answering harassingly repeated questions about the same subject matter repeatedly asked from different angles.
5. 5. In light with jurisprudence pertaining to noble law of RTI based upon statute, rules, guidelines, OMs and plethora of judicial pronouncements, it is most humbly submitted that:
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Chandra Pandey, Law officer/CPIO- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant from their official record. In addition, he submitted that the Appellant has been filing multiple RTI applications with no real intention of getting information but instead for harassing the officials. He averred hat the Appellant has filed approximately 203 RTI applications 144 Appeals before FAA in AIIMS Rishikesh. He further mentioned that due to the multiple, indiscriminate and repetitive filing of frivolous RTI applications by the Appellant, the officials of the respondent public authority are bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information instead of focusing on their core duties, leading to huge wastage of time and resources of public authority. He requested the Commission to declare the Appellant as a vexatious and frivolous RTI applicant. He has placed reliance Page 3 on various court decisions viz. CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Shail Sahni Vs Sanjeev Kumar and Ors.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the reply provided by the PIO is self- explanatory and information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission cannot turn a blind eye towards such misuse of the RTI Act nor allow such a practice by those who choose to clog the information dissemination system with voluminous and frivolous queries, thereby hindering the flow of information to the genuine information seekers. The Commission notes that the Appellant has undermined the spirit of the RTI Act by filing numerous RTI Applications. Commission wishes to remark that the RTI Act must not be misconstrued as an Act which grants unfettered rights to the Appellant to inundate the public authority with frivolous RTI applications. Seeking such voluminous information would necessarily divert the resources and attention of the public authorities from their day to day work. The Commission advises the Appellant to refrain from burdening the information dissemination system with such overwhelming number of queries and RTI applications, lest he is barred from such activity in future. At this juncture, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer to the observation of the Apex Court's decision dated 09.08.2011 in the case titled: Central Board Of Secondary Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors specifically discussing this aspect:
"33. The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources .....
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 Page 4 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 the light of the aforementioned decision and in view of the fact that appropriate response has already been furnished to the Appellant, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)