Central Information Commission
Nityananda Das vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 5 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ICARH/C/2022/604177 +
CIC/ICARH/A/2022/604716 +
CIC/ICARH/A/2022/653263 +
CIC/IVTRI/A/2022/641725
Nityananda Das ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
1. Director (Fin-II), Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, RTI Cell,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Indian Veterinary Research
Institute (ICAR), RTI Cell,
Izatnagar, Bareilly, UP-243122. ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 04/07/2023
Date of Decision : 04/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above mentioned Complaint/Second Appeals have been clubbed
together for decision as these are based on similar issues.
Relevant facts emerging from complaint/Appeals:
1
RTI applications filed on : 19/10/2021, 14/09/2021, 18/07/2022 & 16/06/2022
CPIO replied on : 08/11/2021, 08/10/2021, 04/08/2022 & 25/06/2022
First appeals filed on : 09/11/2021, 17/10/2021, 05/08/2022 & 01/07/2022
First Appellate Authority orders : 01/12/2021, 25/10/2021, 02/09/2022 & 26/07/2022
Complaint/Second Appeals : 20/01/2022,22/01/2022, 03/10/2022 & 03/07/2022
dated
CIC/ICARH/C/2022/604177
Information sought:
The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.10.2021 with Respondent no. 1 seeking the following information:
"Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) issued a Letter No. F.24- 1/93-Cdn (A & A) dated 23rd Feb, 93 on granting on Non-Practicing Allowance (NM) to veterinary scientist etc. This letter was issued with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance vide Dy. No. 7(90)/E.III/89 dated 4.2.93. Now I am requesting you to provide the requisite information under the RTI Act, 2005.
1. The Certified copy of the Ministry of Finance Note / Letter vide Dy. No. 7(90)/E.III/89 dated 4.2.93 on which basis the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) issued a Letter No. F.24-1/93-Cdn (A & A) dated 23rd Feb, 93 (a copy of the ICAR Letter dated 23rd Feb, 93 Is attached for ready reference and locating the requisite information).
2. Certified copy of the complete file noting on which basis the ICAR Issued a Letter No. F.24-1/93-Cdn (A & A) dated 23rd Feb, 93 on granting on Non- Practicing Allowance (NPA) to veterinary scientist etc."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant/appellant on 08.11.2021 stating as under:
"It is informed that the records sought by you is not available as the file pertaining to the same is not traceable."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant/appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.11.2021. FAA's order dated 01.12.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
2CIC/ICARH/A/2022/604716 Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.09.2021 with Respondent no. 1 seeking the following information:
"In my earlier RTI application dated, I requested to provide information on the (I) Basic Pension Amount and (II) Dearness Relief for the month of March 2021 in respect of Dr. K. L. Khurana, Ex Principal Scientist. The CPIO, ICAR vide Letter dated 09.08.2021 Intimated that the information sought is exempted u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA, ICAR vide Letter dated 09.09.2021 that the information / records pertaining to revision of pension of Dr. Khurana are available with Council in fiduciary relationship and the information / records relate to the personal information in respect of Dr. Khurana, therefore, the same could not be provided to the applicant.
On similar issues, CIC observed (vide Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000773/18789 dated 07.05.2012) that Section 4(1)(b)(x) requires the monthly remuneration received by officers and employees, including system of compensation to be displayed suo-moto by a Public Authority. From these it appears reasonable for citizens who ask for Information about the pensionary calculations, rules under which pensions are calculated and obtaining information about the retirement benefits of retired public servants. These are all paid from public funds and the citizens right to know about these cannot be denied. The Commission therefore does not uphold the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as valid.
In another CIC Decision (No. CIC/POSTS/A/2017/185367 dated 10.04.2018) it was observed that Pension is part of the salary as consideration for the services rendered and continuation of payments to the retired public servants, and that would paid out of public exchequer as per the pre-fixed scale and other aspects. The salary detail of the public servant is not his personal information. It has to be in the public domain under Section 4. On the same logic the pension related information is not personal Information of the pensioner. The CPIO should not have denied that information wrongly invoking Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Copies of both the above mentioned OC decisions are attached for ready reference.3
In view of above, I am seeking following information under the RTI Act, 2005.
1. The total number of Veterinary Scientists who had retired from the ICAR Headquarter, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi since the implementation of the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission at ICAR.
2. Of the above, for how many have receiving the pension & retirement benefits, which were fixed as per the recommendation of the 7th Pay Commission.
3. Please give the Pension Payment orders and the calculation sheets for them.
4. The total amount of fund that was received by ICAR from Government of India for payment of pension & retirement benefits during the financial year 202021."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant/complainant on 08.10.2021 stating as under:
"1. A total of 6 Veterinary Scientists had retired from the ICAR. Hq. Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi since the implementation of the recommendation of Th CPC at ICAR.
2. All these 6 Pensioners are receiving the Pension & Retirement Benefits as per the recommendation of the 7th Pay Commission.
3.The information sought is third party information. As per the provision in the RTI act 2005 under section-I I, the disclosure of information sought requires consent of the third party in writing or orally whether the information be disclosed or not. Hence, the information sought can be provided with the consent of all these 6 concerned persons.
4. No amount of fund was received by ICAR from Government of India under Accounting Head of "Pension & Retirement Benefits" during the financial year 2020-21."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant/complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.10.2021 on the ground of denial of information against point no. 3. FAA's order dated 25.10.2021 held as under:
4"The matter was examined and information sought under point 3 shall be provided after obtaining the consent of the individuals as information sought is a third party information and providing the same will amount to breach of their privacy."
CIC/ICARH/A/2022/653263 Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.07.2022 with Respondent no. 1 seeking the following information:
"Please intimate the last basic pay (including Non-practicing Allowance NPA) drawn by Dr. K.L. Khurana, Ex-Principal Scientist on which all pensionary benefits (like Basic amount of monthly pension, commutation etc.) had been calculated by the Pension Authorising Unit (PAU), ICAR New Delhi. (Dr. K.L. Khurana retired from ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi on 31.08.2018.)"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant/complainant on 04.08.2022 stating that " it is informed that information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, is exempted from being disclosed as defined under Section 8 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant/complainant filed a First Appeal dated 05.08.2022. FAA's order, dated 02.09.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/IVTRI/A/2022/641725 Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.06.2022 with the Respondent no. 2 seeking the following information:
1. "The competent officers at IVRL Izatnagar (UP), who took the decision that the Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) would not be given to the two veterinary scientists viz., Dr. Yashoda Thirupati and Dr. Meemansha Sharma who joined in the month of January, 2020 at the Physiology & Climatology Division and Pharmacology & Toxicology Division, IVRI Izatnagar, respectively.5
2. The complete file noting where it had been decided that Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) would not be given to the two veterinary scientists viz., Dr. Yashoda Thirupati and Dr. Meemansha Sharma who joined in the month of January, 2020 at the Physiology & Climatology Division and Pharmacology & Toxicology Division, IVRI Izatnagar, respectively.
3. The complete file noting on which basis the IVRI Authority issued Circular No.62-1/19-E.I dated 25.3.2019 regarding granting of Non-practicing Allowance (NPA) of the Veterinary scientists working at IVRI.
4. The ASRB advertisement Date and Number on which basis Dr. Yashoda Thirupati and Dr. Meemansha Sharma were selected as ICAR Scientist and thereafter they joined in the month of January 2020 at the Physiology & Climatology Division and Pharmacology & Toxicology Division, IVRI Izatnagar, respectively.
5. The certified copy of the ICAR Office Memorandum No.F.24-1/93-Cdn (A&A) dated 23rd February 1993 on the subject : Recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission- Grant of Non-practicing Allowance (NPA) of the Veterinary Officers.
6. The date when the Finance & Accounts Section, IVRI Izatnagar received the Office Memorandum No.F.24-1/93-Cdn (A&A) dated 23rd February 1993 on the subject : Recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission- Grant of Non-practicing Allowance (NPA) of the Veterinary Officers."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 25.6.2022 stating that " it is to inform that your said request can not be considered in accordance to judgement dated 28.7.2020 of the Central Information Commission."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant/complainant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2022. FAA's order dated 26.07.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant/appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint and set of Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
6The following were present:-
Complainant/Appellant: Not present.
Respondent no. 1: Manish Wahdera, CPIO along with Rajesh Sahay and Freedom Guria, U.S. & CPIO present through intra-video conference. Respondent no. 2: Ashwini Kumar, Senior Administrative Officer & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that considering the written request of the Complainant/Appellant, special efforts have been made by the Registry attached with the bench to connect him through mobile phone; however, no response has been received from the Complainant/ Appellant perpetually.
Further, detailed written submissions have been received in each case from the CPIOs' prior to the hearing, which are all taken on record.
The CPIOs submitted that he has nothing further to add in the matters except for what he has already submitted in writing on 17.04.2023 detailing the repetitiveness of the Complainant's/Appellant's RTI Applications and Appeals on the grievance of grant of NPA benefits to Veterinary Scientists of ICAR in the 7th CPC Regime, which has already since been resolved by an order of Ministry of Finance dated 08.02.2023 and consequently the pension is also being remitted to the account of Complainant/ Appellant from 21.02.2023 onwards.
Here, the Commission would like to recall the earlier detailed decision on the similar matters of the Complainant/ Appellant passed on 03.03.2023 vide File Nos. CIC/DOEXP/C/2022/624741; CIC/DOEXP/C/2022/638610; CIC/DOEXP/C/2022/638892+639257; CIC/DOEXP/C/2022/643271 with the following observation -
"since the instant case was being heard as a part of 10 bunch cases of the Complainant, at the hearing outset, the Commission recalled that earlier cases of the Complainant based on the same subject matter have been heard and decided in the recent past vide a bunch of 6 cases on 18.11.2022 in File Nos. CIC/DOEXP/C/2021/651313; CIC/DOEXP/C/2022/601584 etc. wherein the following was observed and held:
"....The Commission has taken into consideration the earlier order passed by this bench with respect to the same grievance of the Complainant as placed on record by the CPIO during the hearing. Further, it is noteworthy that another 7 bench of the Commission in a bunch of 37 cases (vide File No.CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/655120 + 36 cases) of the same Complainant against Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI) in the context similar grievances, observed the following:
"Taking into consideration that the present bunch of cases are complaints u/s 18 of the RTI Act and the applicant also is seeking relief in the form of imposition of penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act to the CPIO, the Commission heard 28 all the above listed cases, perused the rejoinders of the complainant in each of the cases and the replies of the respondent. After thoroughly going through each of the cases, the bench is constrained to state that the present cases are revolving around one or two limited and similar issues. It appears that the complainant is aggrieved with the pay fixation of Scientists and the failure to include NPA in the revision of the pension given to him after the implementation of the 7th CPC, delay in the payment of gratuity amount and through all his above listed RTI applications, he is trying to redress his grievance in the garb of seeking information under the RTI Act through these multiple complaints which are often overlapping with each other. The Commission finds no malafide intent on the part of the CPIO as it can be seen that in almost all the cases, replies have been given by the CPIO and considering the fact that the complainant had filed multiple numbers of RTI applications and in each of his applications, voluminous information was being sought. The Commission is constrained to state that the complainant has resorted to filing of repeated RTI applications which have generated from one or two issues, and therefore the Commission finds no scope to further intervene in these matters.
The complainant 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 pressing for penalty against them. 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 complainant, when the complainant is not in search of information but only settling his service grievances against the department by filing multiple, vexatious, repetitive RTI applications followed by appeals and complaints. All the complaints are inter-related in some manner or the other and are clearly indicative of absolute misuse of the provisions of the RTI Act.
However, the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that the complainant has not filed only one RTI application, but more than 45 RTI applications 8 within the same time period and for the sake of argument, even if the submissions of the complainant are accepted that it was not reasonable or feasible for him to travel 300 kms for getting 10 to 15 pages of information, however those 10 to 15 pages were confined to one RTI application which were to be collated and collected from many files dealing with the subject matter and when the same situation is applied to 45 of his RTI applications, the information undoubtedly becomes voluminous. Further, the nature of the information sought by the complainant was revolving around one or two limited issues but he has sought each and every information about the revision of his pension consequent upon the implementation of the 7th CPC, and other related issues. Under such circumstances, the best possible way to address the issue of the complainant was to give him an opportunity to inspect all the relevant records available with the respondent organisation, so that the complainant may himself see what all information is required by him.
xxx xxx Having said so, the Commission opines that the complainant is only exhausting the resources of the public authority as well as the Commission. Instead he should approach the appropriate forum of law or the competent Court for redressal of his service grievances. Moreover, the CPIOs present during the hearing tried to explain the main issue of NPA to the complainant for his satisfaction and also indicated that even now the matter is under consideration and has not attained finality. Therefore, the Commission finds no merit in the complaints listed above."
Furthermore, in the backdrop of the Complainant's repetitive RTI Applications, it will not be out of place to refer to the following observations of a former bench of the Commission with respect to another bunch of 13 cases of the Appellant (alongside another Appellant- Chandana Das) filed against the Ministry of Defence vide File No. CIC/VS/A/2015/001688/SD + 12 cases:
"The larger issue then here is the repetitive nature of these RTI Applications and the motivated attempt at putting the public authority as well as the Commission to test. To highlight this larger issue, it is imperative to refer to certain observations of the Commission in this regard. Some of these being:
• File No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326SA decided on 25.06.2014 9 '.....Though Right to Information Act, 2005 did not have any specific provision to bar the re petition for information like Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the universal principle of civil justice 'res judicata' will certainly apply and the repeated request can be denied. Two Latin maxims form the basis of this rule, they are:
'interest republicae ut sit finis litium' (= it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation) and 'nemo devet vis vexari pro una et eadem cause" (=no man should be taxed twice over for the same cause).
If presumed that the PIOs, First Appellate Authorities and the Commissions are statutorily compelled to entertain the repeated RTI applications, information litigation and woes of public authorities would never end. An Appeal, as provided by law is legal, because it is a legal opportunity to challenge the order on reasonable and legal grounds. Engaging with the application which is same or slightly modified request for information which was responded earlier will be certainly against the principles of natural justice both procedural and substantive, as far as right to information is concerned.' '.....The Commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority, and based on the responses file a bunch of RTI questions from the same or other wings of same public authority, or from other authority. This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public authority. As the PIOs go on answering, more and more questions are generated out of the same and in the same proportion the number of repeated first appeals and second appeals also will be growing.' • File No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00374 & 375 decided on 28.08.2006 '....the nature of queries and the information sought are such that the information seeker would never be satisfied because the promotion of self interest, rather than public interest, was dominant, as the appellant had sought redressal of grievances.' •FileNos.CIC/SG/C/2011/000760,CIC/SM/A/2011/000926/SG,CIC/SM/A/20 11/0 01111/SG,CIC/SG/A/201 1/002909 decided on 17.10.2012 '....The Commission, at several appellate hearings, has explained to the complainant that under RTI Act, only the information as per records can be made available; multiple RTI applications and appeals would not provide him any information beyond the records that exists. The Commission recognizes the fact that valuable time of the complainant, respondent public 10 authority as well as the Commission is being spent in merely going through the motions prescribed under the RTI Act again and again to obtain similar information. .... At this juncture the Commission would like to mention that though the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used indiscriminately to fulfill the demands of one individual. In the present matter, it must be noted that the Complainant is pursuing multiple litigation and various public authorities are being asked to divert an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of resources just to respond to hundreds of RTI 11 applications filed by him. ...The Commission is also conscious of the fact that it is financed by the poorest man in this country who may be starving to death. The complainant by repeatedly filing similar RTI applications and appeals with the respondent public authority and the Commission, is wasting public resources' The foregoing stance can be more so exemplified in the light of 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 spends 75% of their 11 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.' xxx ...The Appellant(s) are further advised to not cause a mockery of the spirit of the RTI Act by unnecessarily flooding the public authority with RTI Applications on the same matter involving no larger public interest. It is abundantly made clear that any number of RTI Applications on the same issue will not alter the information that was held and parted with by the Respondents."
Adverting to the foregoing observations, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the Complainant has been rebuked by multiple benches of the Commission in the past with respect to different public authorities for the apparent misuse of the 12 RTI Act on his part yet the Complainant appears to have not appreciated the said observations, which is rather unfortunate and appalling to note.
While dismissing the instant complaint as bereft of merit, the Commission again advices the Complainant to abstain from the repeated misuse of the RTI Act."
In pursuance of the earlier observations, while the CPIO in the instant case also reiterated their earlier submissions vide a detailed letter dated 28.02.2023 alleging harassment and misuse of the RTI Act by the Complainant, an update on the grievance of the Complainant was put forth at this stage, the contents of the written submissions are reproduced here for emphasis on the misuse of the RTI Act as well as for clarity on the latest update on the revision of NPA:
"l. The appellant/applicant, vide several online RTI applications sought information revolving around the grant of Non Practicing Allowance to the Veterinary scientists of ICAR as the applicant is aggrieved due to failure in including NPA in the revision of the pension given to him after the implementation of 7th CPC.
II. The CPIO (E.111.A) has accordingly replied to every RTI application as per RTI Act. However, applicant never seemed to be satisfied because of the promotion of the self interest, rather than public interest.
III. Moreover, the matter of ICAR is a policy matter which involves huge financial implication and the matter was under examination in this Department, no information with regard to file notings of this Department was provided to the applicant, as it would be disadvantageous position of the Government in order to take a decision in the above said policy matter.
IV. It is further submitted that the appellant is a habitual information seeker which have been basically related to the above said policy matter i.e. grant of NPA benefits to Veterinary Scientists of ICAR in 7th CPC regime. In this regard, various RTI application, lst Appeal and 2nd Appeal filed by the applicant/appellant are as under:
a. RTI applications: 41 Numbers since December 2020 (all disposed of by the CPIO).
b. RTI Appeals: 30 Numbers since January 2021 (all disposed of by FAA). c. 2nd Appeal in CIC: 7 Numbers of CIC 2nd Appeals heard since 02.05.2022. 10 Numbers of CIC listed on 03.03.2023.13
In previous instances when the complainant (Sh Nityananda Das) filed 2nd appeal for hearing in 6 RTI applications on 18.11.2022 (i.e. CIC/DOEXP/C/2022/601766 and Ors), the Hon'ble CIC stated that:
xxx VI. Further, Hon'ble CIC dismissing all of the 6 appeals/complaints of Sh Nityananda Das on 18.11.2022 stated that:
xxx VII. Considering the fact that CPIO is bound to abide by RTI Act, 2005 and in order to avoid penalty under RTI Act, the undersigned has to spend valuable time to dispose of repeated RTI application having the policy matter which is under examination in this Department. VIII. In this regard, Hon'ble C1C's order No. C1C/ALDMU/A/2017/102135 dated 24.04.2017 passed by Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kesarwani Vs PIO Allahabad Museum may kindly be referred to wherein Hon'ble Commission has recommended to address the problem of harassing & repeated questions/misuse of RTI Act.
4. All the above RTI applications/1st appeals/2nd appeals are basically related to grievances of the applicant/appellant with regard to the grant of NPA benefit to Veterinary Scientists of ICAR in 7th CPC regime. The said proposal of Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE) has been agreed to vide ID Note of this Department bearing No. 12-09/2021-E.III.A dated 08.02.2023."
Upon a query from the Commission regarding intimation of the latest update on his grievance, the Complainant confirmed that he has received the above quoted communication of the CPIO. He further argued that yet he has dissatisfaction with the manner in which the RTI Application(s) have been dealt with by the CPIO without providing him information even in cases which involved the subject matter of 6th CPC, which was not even a matter that was under consideration for the CPIO to withhold the details thereof.
Decision:
The Commission observes that in light of the decision of 18.11.2022 quoted above, the instant matter is considered as a mere extension of the earlier cases filed by the Complainant on the same grievance of grant of NPA and therefore no action is warranted with respect to the original reply of the CPIO.14
The Complainant is further cautioned that henceforth any repetitive case on the same subject matter of grant or revision of NPA may be summarily dismissed by the Commission."
Decision Considering the applicability of the ratio of the above mentioned decision, the Commission hereby summarily dismisses the instant complaint/ Second Appeals.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 15