Central Information Commission
R Pullam Raju vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 27 November, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/UIDAI/A/2019/107923
In the matter of:
R Pullam Raju
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/ADG (E&U- II)
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)
Enrolment and Update Division-II, 7th floor,
UIDAI building, Bangla Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir,
Gole Market, New Delhi - 110 001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 22/11/2018 CPIO replied on : 31/12/2018 First appeal filed on : 10/01/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 30/01/2019 Second Appeal dated : 09/02/2019 Date of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Date of Decision : 26/11/2020 The following were present: Appellant : Present over VC
Respondent: Shri RVN Srinivas, Assistant Director General & CPIO, present over intra VC and Ms Anita Kundra, Deputy Director & CPIO, Regional Office, present over VC.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in regard to complaint dated 19/10/2018 addressed to the Chief Vigilance Officer, UIDAI, New Delhi with regard to cancellation of Aadhar card in respect of Sri Rudraraju Seetharamaraju, S/o (Late) R. Ramaraju bearing No. 9599 7884 6908, having address as Door No.1-61-1, Garagapamr Village, Palacoderu Mandalam, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh issued by the UIDAI on 30/08/2014:1
1. Certified copies of all letters / communications issued by O/o the Chief Vigilance Officer, UIDAI, New Delhi on the above said complaint.
2. Provide the certified copy of the action taken report by O/o the Chief Vigilance Officer, UIDAI, New Delhi on the above said complaint.
3. Provide the certified copies of entire note file / correspondence held by O/o the Chief Vigilance Officer, UIDAI, New Delhi on the above said complaint.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the exemption sought by the CPIO does not apply to the information sought in his RTI application given the nature of the matter. Instead its disclosure is a matter of public interest. The information could potentially help in unravelling a case of corruption and fraud which was done potentially with the assistance and collusion of higher officials and as such the disclosure is in public interest. He referred to various CIC orders to substantiate his claim of public interest.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply dated 31.12.2018. She also informed the Commission that the appellant has filed multiple RTI applications covering similar issues regarding cancellation of the Aadhaar Card issued to his brother and has filed multiple complaints in this regard. Based on his several complaints, they have verified all the documents given by Sri Rudraraju Seetharamaraju for enrolment/updation, however, all the documents were found in order and are as per the UIDAI guidelines and processes and it is not possible for them to devote their entire time in replying to his frequent and repetitive applications. She further submitted that till date the appellant has filed 10 RTI applications in her Regional Office and 10 other RTI applications in the Headquarters. She also referred to various orders of the Commission wherein the same/similar issue was adjudicated several times.
Observations:
Before going into the merits of the case, it is relevant to place on record the earlier orders of the Commission while adjudicating the second appeals filed by 2 the appellant against Unique Identification Authority of India. The main paras of the order no. CIC/UIDAI/C/2018/107313 dated 19.08.2019 is reproduced below:
"The complainant should know that the RTI Act is a means to promote public interest and should not to be used as an instrument to harass the public authority and to handle personal grievances. His RTI applications have a grave impact on the functioning of UIDAI and if this is allowed, the public authority cannot focus on their core duties and their entire time will be devoted to such frivolous/vexatious/ repeated/multiple RTI questions. This is undoubtedly misuse and it has to be checked.
The nature of queries in all of these matters is such that largely seeks information regarding action taken on the appellant's multiple representations mostly dealing with the aadhar card given to his brother by UIDAI."
In another order passed in File No. CIC/MOCIT/A/2016/277025 dated 11.08.2017 are reproduced below:
"No larger public interest is involved in the matter. The sought for information has been provided to the appellant. The action/steps taken by the respondent in giving information in response to the RTI application is satisfactory."
In File No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2018/101643 dated 24.09.2019, the following observation was made:
"The action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application is satisfactory, as the outcome of the complaint has been informed to the appellant. The Commission observed that other queries of the appellant is personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."
Now, having perused the instant Second Appeal, it is observed that the appellant is seeking action taken on his complaint dated 19.10.2018. However, the main purpose and the aim of filing various RTI applications alongwith the present RTI application is for the cancellation of the Aadhaar Card issued to his brother. These RTI applications appear to be nothing but a way of showing personal vengeance against his brother. It is also noted that the appellant has filed most of these appeals prior to the orders of the Commission mentioned above but has pursued the second appeals, not paying any heed to the several orders passed by the Commission wherein the matter has been already 3 discussed in detail. This case becomes a fit illustration for the observation of the Apex Court in Aditya Bandhopadhyay's case that -
"...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...."
In the second appeal memo and various other letters submitted by the appellant in connection with his RTI applications, he stated that he is fighting against corruption prevailing in the respondent organisation by issuing a fake Aadhaar card to his brother, however, the fact remains that the manner adopted by him shows otherwise. All this exercise on the part of the appellant negates the very purpose of RTI Act. In other words, even if the appellant was having a noble cause in filing these RTI applications according to him, the fact remains that the means adopted by the appellant speaks volumes of his ignorance of the spirit of the RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI applicants to not transgress the spirit of RTI Act by clogging the functioning of public authorities with such repetitive and implausible RTI applications, more so, when such applicant was already restrained from filing further RTI applications by the Commission itself.
The appellant has misconceived the role of the Central Information Commission and it is apparent from his submissions in each and every case that he is trying to create a fear among the CPIOs and the FAAs by seeking voluminous information from each section. The CIC is an adjudicating body to give relief only in such cases where it is found that the relevant information is not provided to the applicant. However, in the present cases, the CPIO and the FAA cannot be expected to satisfy the appellant, when the appellant is not in search of information but only settling his personal grievances against his brother by filing multiple ,repetitive RTI applications followed by appeals and complaints. All the appeals are inter-related in some manner or the other and are clearly indicative of absolute misuse of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission without commenting on the merits of the appeal deems it appropriate to dismiss the appeal and orders no relief in the matter. However, the appellant is free to raise this issue with the 4 appropriate forum. He is once again advised not to file repetitive RTI applications on the same subject matter in future. In case any such repeated second appeals or complaints are filed before the Commission, the same shall be dismissed in limine.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
5