Central Information Commission
Anil Kumar Sidharth vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 4 November, 2019
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
Decision no.: CIC/ICARH/A/2018/636443/02043
File no.: CIC/ICARH/A/2018/636443
In the matter of:
Anil Kumar Sidharth
... Appellant
VS
CPIO & Under Secretary (Admn.)
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110 001
&
Central Public Information Officer
ICAR - Central Soil Salinity Research Institute
Karnal - 132 001, Haryana
... Respondents
RTI application filed on : 28/07/2018 CPIO replied on : 12/10/2018 First appeal filed on : 26/10/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 19/11/2018 Second Appeal dated : 04/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 04/11/2019 Date of Decision : 04/11/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Ravi Chauhan, Under Secretary (Admn) and CPIO, present in person ICAR, Shri Purvinder, Principal Scientist and CPIO, CSSRI Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has mentioned that he is not satisfied with the reply provided to him in respect of Sr. No. 1 (c), which is as follow:1
1(c) Certified copies of complete 'PUC' and/ or 'F.R.' alongwith all annexure recorded on Note prepared by the Administration of the Council for appellant's transfer from CSSRI, Karnal to NIASM, Baramati.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that the CPIO is in the habit of not transferring the RTI application within 5 days from its receipt as per Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply in respect of point 1(c) of the RTI application.
The CPIO relied on the FAA's order in respect of point no. 1(c). The appellant contended that the copy of complaint against him is the PUC document and he should be given the copies of the same. He further objected to the delay in the CPIO's reply.
Observations:
The Commission takes note of the fact that the appellant has filed a number of RTI applications seeking information on a number of issues of CSSRI. Today itself 19 Second appeals are being heard. It is seen that all the RTI applications seek information regarding the Director of the Institute, some personal details relating to him, also information on procurement of various items, tour details etc. From all these RTI applications, it can be clearly seen that more than actual information being sought, the appellant is asking for vexatious and similar type of questions which have no element of public interest. Some of the points have been replied to by the CPIO and the FAA through apt and proper replies/orders. For some points, the information has been correctly denied under appropriate sub-sections of Section 8 of the RTI Act. All in all, it is clearly seen that the appellant is obviously harassing the concerned department where he is himself an employee for any or every kind of information relating to the said Department of which he has knowledge as he is employed in the organization.
Through these RTI appeals, it is also noted that the appellant is carrying a grievance against the Department. He is working as Finance and Accounts Officer and an inquiry was instituted against him which led to framing of 2 File no.: CIC/ICARH/A/2018/636443 charges, after which a charge -sheet for a major penalty has been issued and the matter is under process of disciplinary proceedings..
The RTI Act cannot be misused in this manner to harass the public authority which not only affects the core working of the organisation but also drains their resources and further deprives other citizens of the opportunity of getting timely replies. From all this, it appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. In this context, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely on the following decision:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] held 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 3 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. 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."
The Commission also draws the attention of the appellant to its earlier decisions of May and July,2019, wherein , the appellant had been warned and admonished for misusing the RTI Act by filing frequent applications of similar nature against CSSRI. However, based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that a revised reply can be given in respect of point no. 1(c) of the RTI application.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised point wise reply as discussed above to the Appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission by the CPIO thereafter.
The CPIO is advised to be careful regarding the timelines prescribed u/s 6(3) in respect of the transfer of the RTI application.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु 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 4