Central Information Commission
Mrjolly George vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 22 July, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
Files No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898, CIC/SH/A/2015/002322, CIC/SH/C/2016/000065 &
CIC/SH/C/2016/000071, CIC/SH/A/2016/000041, CIC/SH/A/2015/002069,
CIC/SH/A/2015/002105, CIC/SH/A/2015/002290, CIC/SH/A/2015/001953,
CIC/SH/A/2016/000319, CIC/SH/A/2016/000374, CIC/SH/C/2015/000067,
CIC/SA/C/2015/000114/SH,CIC/SA/C/2015/000125/SH, CIC/SH/C/2016/000080,
CIC/SH/C/2016/000081, CIC/SH/C/2016/000104, CIC/SH/C/2016/000096,
CIC/SH/C/2015/000324, CIC/SA/C/2015/000145/SH, CIC/SH/A/2016/000232,
CIC/SH/C/2016/000066, CIC/SH/C/2016/000086, CIC/SH/A/2015/001852,
CIC/SH/A/2016/000457, CIC/SH/C/2016/000057, CIC/SH/C/2016/000085
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (18)/ (19)
Date of hearing : 22nd July 2016
Date of decision : 22nd July 2016
Name of the Appellant / : Shri Jolly George,
Complainant H.No. 56/2, Ward No.8,
VillPrathrapur, POBathu Basthi,
Port Blair, S/Andaman 744105
Name of the Public : 1Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent O/o. Assistant Commissioner (S),
Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair, 2Central Public Information Officer, O/o. the Tehsildar Ferrargunj, South Andaman, Andaman & Nicobar Island 744 206 File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898 3Central Public Information Officer, O/o. the Tehsildar Port Blair Port Blair, A & N Island The Appellant / Complainant was present at the NIC Studio, Port Blair. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Nagendra Tripathi, AC (Settlement) and CPIO was present at the NIC Studio, Port Blair.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal In this order, the following appeals / complaints filed by the Appellant / Complainant are under consideration:
1. RTI application dated 22.6.2015 (File No. 1898):The Appellant / Complainant stated that no information was provided to him on any of the thirteen points of the RTI application. The Respondents stated that on 13.7.2015, the CPIO advised the Appellant / Complainant to approach the concerned Tehsildar to obtain the information. They further submitted that the information sought is in connection with the case of subdivision of land of the Appellant / Complainant.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898
2. RTI application dated 14.1.2015 (File No. 2322): The Appellant / Complainant stated that the information has been received and the case may be closed.
3. RTI application dated 30.11.2015 (File No. 65 and 71): The Appellant / Complainant stated that no information was provided to him. The Respondents stated that a reply was sent on 5.1.2016 and the Appellant / Complainant was asked to deposit photocopying charges of Rs. 18/ to obtain the information. It was pointed out to the Respondents that since the information had not been provided within the stipulated period of thirty days, it was required to be provided free of charge. The Respondents assured us that this would be done at the earliest.
4. RTI application dated 8.9.2015 (File No.41): The Appellant / Complainant stated that no information was provided to him in spite of the order dated 24.11.2015 of the FAA to do so. The Respondents drew our attention to the CPIO's pointwise reply dated 14.10.2015, in which he had asked the Appellant to deposit photocopying charges to obtain the information. The Appellant / Complainant stated that he did not receive the letter dated 14.10.2015 of the File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898 CPIO. The Respondents submitted that it was sent by speed post and they have the postal record concerning its dispatch.
5. RTI application dated 2.6.2015 (File No. 2069): The Appellant / Complainant stated that the information on points No. 8 to 13 has not been provided. The Respondents stated that the CPIO sent a reply on 17.6.2015 and the available information was provided. With regard to points No. 8 to 13, we note that the CPIO replied pointwise, mentioning in some cases that the information was not available in his office. In one case, he stated that since the RC number and the name of the party had not been given, the information could not be traced. In some other cases, he asked the Appellant to approach Tehsildar, Ferrargunj to obtain the information.
6. RTI application dated 29.6.2015 (File No. 2105): The Appellant / Complainant stated that the information on points No. 5 and 10 to 12 was not provided. The CPIO stated that the information available on the record in his office was provided in response to the above application.
7. RTI application dated 7.8.2015 (File No. 2290): The Appellant / Complainant stated that the information, with the exception of points No. 1, 11, File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898 12, 19, 20, 25 and 26, has not been provided. He expressed his interest in particular in the information sought at point No. 2. The Respondents stated that the available information was provided.
8. RTI application dated 10.7.2015 (File No. 1953): The Appellant / Complainant stated that the full information was not provided. The Respondents stated that the CPIO sent a reply on 3.8.2015. It was pointed out to the Respondents that the RTI application contained nineteen points, but the CPIO responded to twelve points only. The Respondents stated that they would check the records again and respond to the remaining points. The CPIO is directed to do so, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Such additional information, as is provided, should be provided free of charge.
9. RTI application dated 2.11.2015 (File No. 319): The Appellant / Complainant stated that no information was provided to him. The Respondents stated that the CPIO sent a reply on 9.11.2015, stating that the documents / information sought was not in the custody of his office. The Appellant / Complainant submitted that the information sought was regarding a notice File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898 issued by the office of the DC to him concerning a property issue and it was a completely irrelevant notice. Therefore, he wanted to get all the information concerning the said notice and the competent authority etc. The Respondents stated that the CPIO is not in a position to offer explanations regarding a notice issued by the DC.
10. RTI application dated 30.10.2015 (File No. 374): The Appellant / Complainant stated that no information was provided. The Respondents stated that the CPIO gave a pointwise reply on 12.11.2015 and the information available with him was provided.
11. RTI application dated 3.12.2014 (File No. 67): The Appellant / Complainant stated that the information has been provided and the case may be dropped.
12. RTI application dated 4.2.2015 (Files No. 114 and 125): The Appellant / Complainant stated that the information has been received and the matter may be closed.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898
13. RTI application dated 9.12.2015 (Files No. 80, 81 and 104): The Appellant / Complainant stated that no information was provided. The Respondents stated that the CPIO sent a pointwise reply on 1.1.2016. The Appellant / Complainant submitted that he did not receive the above reply. The Respondents stated that the reply was sent by speed post and they have the postal record concerning its dispatch.
14. RTI application dated 29.12.2015 (File No. 96): The Appellant / Complainant stated that the information was not provided. The Respondents stated that a reply was sent on 29.2.2016 and the Appellant / Complainant was asked to deposit photocopying charges to obtain the information. However, since the application was not responded to in thirty days, they assured us that the information would be sent free of charge to the Appellant / Complainant at the earliest.
15. RTI application dated 20.4.2015 (Files No. 324 and 145): The Appellant / Complainant stated that another complaint concerning the same RTI application was disposed of by the Commission vide order No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000241 dated 9.2.2016, but in spite of the assurance of the Respondents to the File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898 Commission that a final response would be sent within fifteen days, it has not been done. Shri Nagnedra Tripathi, AC (Settlement) and CPIO assured us that he would check the relevant records and send a final reply to the Appellant, if not already done.
16. RTI application dated 16.11.2015 (Files No. 232, 66 and 86): The Appellant / Complainant stated that no information has been provided to him. The Respondents stated that the matter was referred to the Tehsildar on Special Duty on 20.11.2015. Shri Nagendra Tripathi, AC (Settlement) and CPIO stated that he would check the position and provide such information as is available. With reference to the appeal on File No. 232, the CPIO is directed to do so, free of charge, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
17. RTI application dated 22.5.2015 (File No. 1852): The Appellant / Complainant stated that the information has been received and the matter may be closed.
18. RTI application dated 23.10.2015 (File No. 457): The Appellant / Complainant stated that the information has not been provided. The File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898 Respondents stated that it is not available on their records. Nonetheless, the Appellant can himself inspect the relevant records to see whether any information available therein is of interest to him. The Appellant stated that since he has been informed that the information is not available, there is no point in his carrying out the inspection. The Respondents reiterated that the information is not available on their records.
19. RTI application dated 23.11.2015 (File No. 57 and 85): The information sought in this application is regarding the action taken by the Respondents on a number of letters addressed to them. The Appellant / Complainant stated that the information has not been provided. The Respondents stated that all the letters were concerning the subdivision of the land of the Appellant / Complainant. As stated by them during earlier hearings, the matter was considered by the DC and the case for subdivision was not approved.
2. The Appellant / Complainant made a few general points to state that he has had to file multiple RTI applications because the Respondents do not provide him the information sought by him. He also prayed for action against the officers concerned under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898
3. The Registry has provided us an updated list of the appeals / complaints filed by the Appellant / Complainant and his father Shri George. The Appellant / Complainant has filed 147 appeals and complaints and his father has filed 40 appeals and complaints to the Commission. These arise from his grievance that the subdivision of land sought by him has not been approved by the Revenue Authorities. In the above context, we note the following observations made by us in our order No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000020 (plus thirty eight files) dated 9.2.2016, vide which twenty three complaints and sixteen appeals of the Appellant / Complainant were considered and disposed of: "It is seen that the Complainant's main grievance is rejection of his request regarding subdivision of his land. He also believes that subdivision has been sanctioned in similar other cases. Therefore, he has filed a large number of RTI applications, enquiring not only about the subdivision of his land, but also about the subdivisions carried out in various survey numbers over the years. As explained by the Respondents, it is difficult for them to trace out the information concerning all sub divisions in various survey numbers in the absence of the details of the relevant revenue cases or the year of subdivision. In this context, they also submitted that the land records date from 1961. We find merit in this argument of the Respondents. The File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898 Complainant / Appellant, on the other hand, insists that he should be provided all the information concerning various survey numbers because of his belief that subdivision has been granted in cases similar to his own, whereas his request was rejected. In this context, the Respondents stated that the Complainant's request for subdivision of his land was rejected by the DC on 17.4.2015. The normal course of action for the Complainant / Appellant would have been to file an appeal to the Appellate Authority in the revenue channel i.e. the Principal Secretary (Revenue). In response to our query, the Complainant / Appellant stated that he has filed such an appeal in December 2015, though he did not remember the date. Instead, he has filed a large number of RTI applications, seeking information regarding various land records. From some of his applications, it is seen that he has also filed various representations in the matter and followed up the same with RTI applications, seeking information concerning the action taken on those representations. The Respondents have submitted to us copy of an order passed by the DC on 9.11.2015, pursuant to a directive from the Principal Secretary to dispose of the grievances of the Appellant concerning subdivision of his land. In this order, the DC ruled that if all cotenants submitted proposal for sub division of the land, the same would be considered separately. He, however, rejected the grievance of the Complainant /Appellant concerning subdivision on the ground that File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898 the proposal submitted by him was not consented by cotenants since, the land in question was recorded in the joint names. The Complainant / appellant alleged that his request for subdivision has been rejected without any justification. In this context, we note that the Complainant / Appellant and his father, Shri George have filed as many as 152 appeals / complaints to the Commission during the period 2012 to January 2016. Out of these, as many as 101 appeals / complaints were filed in 2015. We also note our following observation, made in our order No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000361 (plus seven files) dated 31.7.2015, regarding the Complainant's grievance concerning the rejection of his request for subdivision, which underlies the various RTI applications filed by him: "He ought to appreciate that this is not a matter that can be resolved under the RTI Act or by filing multiple RTI applications. He is at liberty to take it up in an appropriate forum."
The Appellant / Complainant has alleged in a large number of cases that the communications sent by the Respondents to him were not received. We have no reason to disbelieve the Respondents' submissions regarding the various replies sent by them. During the hearings, they pointed out that they have the postal record File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898 concerning the replies sent by them and wherever a reply has not been sent, they admitted this fact. We also find some weight in the submission of the AC (Settlement) that a large number of applications have been filed to his office, even though the information is known to be held in other revenue offices. The Appellant / Complainant claimed that the Respondents have not put out the information concerning the various CPIOs. However, from the number of applications filed by him, referring to various land cases/ surveys, he does not appear to be unaware of the issues dealt with by various revenue offices. It is true that not all the applications have been handled strictly in keeping with the provisions of the RTI Act. However, the confusion caused by the large number of applications filed by the Appellant / Complainant is, to a large extent, responsible for this.
35. In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in concluding that the manner in which the Complainant / Appellant has filed a large number of RTI applications to the officers, who have dealt with the case of subdivision of his land, thereby burdening not only the Respondents but also the Commission with avoidable work, amounts to misuse of the RTI Act."
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898
4. In the above context, in our order dated 9.2.2016, we also pointed out to the Appellant / Complainant the observations made by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011, in which the Apex Court advised information seekers not to create a situation whereby 75% of the time of the 75% public servants is spent only in responding to the RTI applications to the detriment of their routine duties. As stated above, in our view, the Appellant / Complainant is misusing the RTI Act. In this context, we note the following observations made by the Commission in case No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000760 (plus three files) dated 17.1.2012: "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, respondentpublic 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 fulfil the demands of one individual. In the present matter ,it must File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898 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 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."
Further, we also reproduce below the observations made by the High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 5.2.2014 in Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 845/2014]: "10. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. 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. A copy of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important and valuable rights upon a citizen."
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898
5. In view of the foregoing, we do not consider it appropriate to give any relief to the Appellant / Complainant, in addition to a few cases above, where directions have been given to the Respondents or they have assured us of provision of a reply / information.
6. In view of the totality of the facts of the matter as mentioned above, there is no ground whatsoever for action against the officers concerned under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
7. With the above directions and observations, the twelve appeals and the fifteen complaints are disposed of.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001898