Central Information Commission
Maurya Suresh Seopal vs Central Soil & Materials Research ... on 22 August, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
Files No.: CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/612833 +
CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/613883 +
CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/613513 +
CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/613906 +
CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/613550 +
CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/616723 +
CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/616719 +
CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/625304
Maurya Suresh Seopal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Soil and Materials
Research Station, RTI Cell,
O1of Palme Marg. Near IIT
Delhi Hostel. Hauz Khas,
New Delhi-110016 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17/08/2022
Date of Decision : 17/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeals/Complaints have been clubbed for decision as
these are based on the same/similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeals/complaints:
Second RTI Application CPIO's reply First Appeal FAA's order Second
1
Appeal/Complaint dated dated Appeal/
no. Complaint
dated
612833 06/09/2021 06/10/2021 24/10/2021 08/12/2021 02/03/2022
613883 06/09/2021 06/10/2021 24/10/2021 08/12/2021 07/03/2022
613513 06/09/2021 08/10/2021 03/11/2021 08/12/2021 07/03/2022
613906 06/09/2021 08/10/2021 03/11/2021 08/12/2021 06/03/2022
613550 06/09/2021 06/10/2021 03/11/2021 08/12/2021 06/03/2022
616723 12/10/2021 09/11/2021 29/11/2021 17/01/2022 21/03/2022
616719 12/10/2021 09/11/2021 29/11/2021 17/01/2022 21/03/2022
625304 08/12/2021 10/01/2022 20/02/2022 04/03/2022 Nil
CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/612833 +
CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/613883
Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 06.09.2021 seeking the following information:
"Request to provide me 1) Recommendation copy of Research Review Committee send to competent authority for publishing below reports 2) Approval copy of below reports signed by competent authority for publishing the paper and 3) complete report of below mentioned list
1. Research Review Report on Shear Strength Characteristics of Soils
2. Research Review Report on Hydro fracturing in Core of Earth and Rock fill Dams 3. Research Review Report on Effect of molding water on compaction density and the permeability characteristics of Soils
4. Research Review Report on comparison of Theoretical and Laboratory Permeability for Coarse Grained Soil
5. Research Review Report on Shear Strength Parameters of Rock Mass
6. Research Review Report on Compaction characteristics of fine-grained soils
7. Monograph on Dispersivity of Soils with Indian case histories
8. State of the Art Report on Use of Geo-synthetics in Hydraulic Structures with Indian case histories
9. State of the Art Report on Canals on Expansive Soils.
B. Requested to provide me complete copies of below mentioned published papers 2
1) Singh, A., and Gosain, A. K. GIS based hydrological modeling for an Indian river basin International Conference on Sustainable Water Resources Management and Climate Change Adaptation Feb17 to 19, 2011, NIT Durgapur, West Bengal, India.
2) Singh, A, Gosain, A. K and Ratnam, M. Water Laws in the Indian Context International Conference on Community Based Water Resource Management in North East India: Lessons from a Global Context held from January 28 to 30, 2011 in Guwahati, India.
3) Singh, A., and Gosain, A. K. Climate Change impact assessment using GIS based hydrological modelling Water International Journal, Vol 36(3), pp. 386 to
397.
4) Singh, A., and Gosain, A. K Scenario generation using GIS based hydrological modeling for climate change adaptation Responding to Global Changes: Water in an urbanizing world Water Week in Stockholm, held from August 21 to 27, 2011.
5) A. Singh, M. Gupta, R. Chitra, and M. Ratnam, GIS applications in Geotechnical Engineering: Some Case Studies, Advances in Geotechnical Engineering, 8 to 9 October, 2011, Surat, Gujarat, India.
6) Singh, A., and Gosain, A. K. GIS based Hydrological Modelling for Climate Change Impact Assessment 2012 International SWAT Conference held from July 18 to 20, 2012 New Delhi, India.
7) Singh, A., and Gosain, A. K. GIS based Hydrological Modelling for Climate Change Impact Assessment Greener Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research Vol. 3 (7), pp. 210 to 219.
8) Chitra R and Gupta Manish,(2012), Innovative approach by Neural Networks in Geotechnical Engineering, Journal on Civil Engineering & Construction review, July, 2012.
9) Chitra, R., and Gupta Manish, Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of Dams. National Conference on Geo Environmental issues and Sustainable Urban Development IGEN2014), Oct11 to 12, 2014, Allahabad."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant/complainant on 06.10.2021 stating as follows:-
Point-1 and 2 : "The requisite information/record is not traceable. However, all the Research Review Reports and Technical Papers which are available on the website of this office (http://csmrs.gov.in/) are published with the approval of competent authority.3
"As per section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, only those information can he supplied which are available and exists under the control of public authority".
Further "the collection and collation of information sought will disproportionally divert the resources of the public authority as per RTI Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
Point -3: the information requested is too voluminous and spread in wide spectrum and available in public domain. The Collection/collation of such information will disproportional), divert the lime and resources of the public authority as per RTI section 7(9) of RTI act. However, information sought regarding technical papers is already available in public domain as in information can be downloaded from the website of relevant journals. Regarding the research review reports as these reports are the part of research work of an Individual/third party on which individual/third party want to continue his research work and disclosure of such information will harm the interest of individual/third party. Such kind of information comes under the category of third party information relating to intellectual property RTI section 8 (1) (d) prohibits the disclosure of such information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant/complainant filed a First Appeal dated 24.10.2021. FAA's order dated 08.12.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO against point No. 1 and 2 of the RTI application and with regard to point No.3 ; the FAA directed the CPIO as under:-
"..... Point No. 3:- CPIO is directed to provide information to the applicant in the PDF format, if available under control of competent authority."
CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/613513 CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/613906 Information sought:
4The Complainant/Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 06.09.2021 seeking the following information:
"provide me all approval copies of Director, CSMRS for publishing papers which are published jointly or individually by Dr. R. Chitra, Dr. Manish Gupta, Simi Shahid Noor, and Dr Amardeep Singh from Year 2014 to till date List is enclosed.
if any paper is missing in list, its approval copy is also to be provided."
The CPIO replied to the appellant/complainant on 06.10.2021 stating as follows:-
".........requisite information/record is not traceable. However, all the Technical Papers which are available on the website of this office (http://csmrs.gov.ini) are published with the approval of competent authority.
"As per section 2 (j) of the RTI Act.2005, only those information can be supplied which are available and exists under the control of public authority"
Further "the collection and collation of information sought will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority as per RTI Section 7(9) of the RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant/complainant filed a First Appeal dated 03.11.2021. FAA's order dated 08.12.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO against points no. 1 and 2 of the RTI application and with regard to point no. 3; the FAA directed the CPIO as under:-
"..... Point No. 3:- CPIO is directed to provide information to the applicant in the PDF format, if available under control of competent authority."
CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/613550 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 06.09.2021 seeking the following information:
B. "Requested to provide me complete copies of below mentioned published papers 5
1) Singh, A., Noor, S., Chitra, R., and Gupta, M. Legal Aspects of Water Sharing in India, International Conference on Modeling of Environmental and Water Resources Systems, HBTI Kanpur, U.P., 24 to 26 March 2017.
2) Singh, A., and Gosain, A. K, GIS Based Hydrological Modelling for Climate Change Impact Assessment, International Conference on Modeling of Environmental and Water Resources Systems, HBTI Kanpur, U.P., 24 to 25 March 2017.
3) Noor, S., Singh, A., Chitra, R., and Gupta, M. Environmental and Geotechnical Investigations for an Earthen Dam in Andaman and Nicobar, India, International Conference on Modeling of Environmental and Water Resources Systems, HBTI Kanpur, U.P., 24 to 26 March 2017.
4) Chitra, R., Manish Gupta, G. V. Rao and G. V. Ramana, Performance of Reinforced Ash Containment Systems, CoNMIG-2017 Conference on Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics, 3 to 4 March 2017, Roorkee, pp. 335-344.
5) Chitra, R., Manish Gupta, Shahid Noor, Solution to a Failure Reach of an Embankment in Expansive Soils, National Conference on Challenges in Geotechnical investigations, Analysis, Design and Construction of Foundations, Paper Na 29R1, 13 to 14 April 2018, Goa. pp130 to135
6) Shahid Noor, Chitra R., Manish Gupta, Amardeep Singh Effect of Clay Content on the Hydraulic Conductivity of Silty Soils International Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology Vol 10 Issue 3 June 2018, pp 86 to 90
7) R. Chitra and Manish Gupta (2019), Geosynthetics in River Erosion Control Case Studies published in Arvind Varma Memorial Paper Series of Indian Geotechnical Society 2019 to 20, June 2019."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 06.10.2021 stating as follows:-
".............information requested is too voluminous and spread in wide spectrum and is already available in public domain. The Collection/collation of such information will disproportionally divert the time and resources of the public authority as per RTI section 7(9) of RTI act. However, information sought can be downloaded from the website of relevant journals/conference. "As per section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. only thoseinformation can be supplied which are available and exists under the control of public authority."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 03.11.2021. FAA's order dated 08.12.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO against point No. 1 and 2 of the RTI application and with regard to point No.3 , the FAA directed the CPIO as under:-
6"..... Point No. 3:- CPIO is directed to provide information to the applicant in the PDF format, if available under control of competent authority."
CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/616723 CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/616719 Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 12.10.2021 seeking the following information:
"It is requested to provide me certified copies of the documents listed below related to A) software purchased before the year 2019 and B) recently Purchased software in the financial year 2019-2020.
1- List of the Softwares along with accessories
2. Certified copy of Purchase order of each softwares indicating Cost of each softwares and cost of their training components
3. Certified copy indicating supplied Date of each softwares
4. Certified copies of Training conducted by software company {related to softwares supplied) to CSMRS employees.
5. Certified copies indicating Expiry date & Renewal carried out for each softwares till date
6. Certified copy Dongal status of softwares and its renewal till date
7. List of users who have used above softwares
8. Certified copies of complete logbook and user register of each software
9. List of protects where software is used.
10. Certified copies showing Benefit of Software used in consultancy, R and D etc.
11. Certified copies showing Revenue earned from software if any The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant/complainant on 09.11.2021 stating as follows:-
"............the information sought by you can be provided and it contains the 2513 no. pages. Hence, it is requested that as per RTI Act-2005, kindly deposit the amount of Rs. 5026 (Rupees Five thousand and twenty six only) @ Rs. 2 per page. The calculations of the amount to be deposited is attached herewith as Annexure -I & II. The above amount may be deposited by any 7 mode as per RTI Act 2005 and forward the receipt to undersigned. The Information will be sent to you on receiving the proof of payment of the above amount."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant/complainant on 29.11.2021 against points no. 7, 9, 10 & 11 of the RTI application.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant/complainant filed a First Appeal dated 15.12.2021. FAA's order dated 17.01.2022 held as under:
"......CPIO is supposed to part only those information which are available and exist under control of public authority .The information which is not available under control of public authority should be denied as uncertified information may not be furnished As per RTI act only certified information should be provided. Downloading information from various website is not certified information by public control authority.
CPIO is therefore directed to look into the complaints of appellant regarding point no 4 and point no 7-11. Out of these points he may provide only those information, which are under control of public authority. Information which is not under control of public authority and Information requiring compilation work need not to furnished as per RTI section 7(9) of the act."
CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/625304 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 08.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"Provide me the complete copies of 17 published papers. List of paper is annexed."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 07.01.2022 stating as follows:-
".............the requisite information is not traceable as no such record exists under the control of competent authority, As per section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, only those information can be supplied which are available and exists under the control of public authority"
Further "the collection and collation of information sought will 8 disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority as per RTI Section 7(9) of the RTI Act".
Further all the requested papers have been published in the various journals and conference proceedings and comes under the copyright act of the respective journals and conferences."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.02.2022. FAA's order dated 04.03.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal(s)/Complaint(s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Shahid Noor, Scientist 'D' & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant/ Complainant expressed in detail his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's replies. He further brought attention of the bench to the fact that research papers/monographs /review reports/journals, etc. as sought by him which plays a vital role in the promotion and performance report of the employees of Respondent organization and that he himself being one of the employees of CSMRS is entitled to know the research papers of other concerned authors in order to check their validity. Further, the Appellant raised the issue of the alleged scam of submission of pirated research papers. He added that the denial of information by the CPIO with a cyclostyled reply such as the information sought is hit by Section 7(9) of RTI Act, and that it cannot be divulged in view of Copyrights Act and also the fact that same is already in public domain; all this reflect on the conduct of the CPIO in withholding the desired information. He emphasized that even otherwise, the Website of the CSMRS only contains the list of research published papers only and not exactly the complete gist of papers. Therefore, he prayed the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete relevant information and also penalize the CPIO for withholding the information.
The CPIO at the outset narrated in detail the functioning of the CSMRS which is under the administrative control of Ministry of Jal Shakti. He further submitted 9 that all in all five major RTI Applications are before the Commission for adjudication wherein the Appellant has sought for similar nature of information and all his RTI Applications have been duly replied on each occasion along with relevant inputs as per the provisions of RTI Act. Upon Commission's instance, he explained that although majority of the research papers/ journals are uploaded on their website along with total list and that the same can be downloaded from their official website. However, the fact remains that CSMRS is not the actual custodian of all the technical papers as sought by the Appellant/ Complainant and that even otherwise , the research papers/review reports/journals, etc. contains the third party's intellectual property rights which cannot be divulged under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. In this regard, Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act is reproduced below for ready reference -
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxx
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information."
The CPIO also emphasized that ignoring all the aforesaid aspect it is undisputed that the information sought was voluminous in nature of a very long-time span; collation and compilation of which would divert the resources of Respondent Public Authority. Thus, the Appellant/ Complainant was informed accordingly that the information cannot be divulged in view of Section 7(9) of RTI Act.
In cases no. CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/613906 + CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/613513 -
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that the CPIO in response to RTI Application has invited attention towards the specific hyperlink for the information sought, however, upon access, he noticed that the entire gist of the research papers are not available in the public domain.
The CPIO submitted that after approval of the Director although the research papers are majorly made public; however, all the technical papers are not uploaded on the website; thus, the Appellant/Complainant was informed 10 accordingly that the information sought was not readily traceable. In this regard, the CPIO at the behest of Commission agreed to share this fact categorically in writing on an affidavit with the Appellant/ Complainant.
In cases no. CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/616723 + CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/616719 -
The Appellant/ Complainant contested that the reply and documents of 2422 pages as furnished by the CPIO after collecting requisite RTI fees were unrelated to the information sought by him. He further contested that documents of only 513 pages were forwarded by the concerned department and that many more documents were missing in the information sought.
The CPIO while rebutting the Appellant's contentions submitted that a calculation sheet of the relevant information along with bifurcation of RTI fees has already been provided to the Appellant and that no additional information is available at their end. Further, at the behest of the Commission, the CPIO agreed to depose this fact on affidavit and share a copy of it with the Appellant.
Decision:
The instant Appeals/ Complaints have been heard together simultaneously and the Commission at the outset based upon a perusal of facts on records and after hearing submissions of the parties at length is of the considered view that the Appellant/Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications of such multitude nature of information sought by interchanging the name of authors merely to pressurize the Respondent public authority into acceding to his request for similar nature of information. It appears that the Appellant/Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the 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 11 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 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."(Emphasis Supplied)......."
In view of the foregoing, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
Nonetheless, the Commission further notes by closely scrutinizing the contents of RTI Applications that replies provided by the CPIOs in response to voluminous nature of information sought through instant RTI Applications were in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant/Complainant regarding the alleged scam of submission of pirated research papers by the CPIO purely forms a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act. In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat 12 and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant/ Complainant and advises him to pursue the matter through appropriate administrative mechanism.
In case no. CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/616723, CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/616719, CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/613513 and CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/616906 -13
Now, upon insistence of the Appellant/ Complainant and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to file an affidavit in cases no. CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/613513 & CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/613906 with the Commission with a copy of it duly endorsed with the Appellant/Complainant stating categorically that information sought for was not readily available or traceable in their office. Further, in cases no. CIC/CSMRS/A/2022/616723 + CIC/CSMRS/C/2022/616719, the CPIO is directed to file a separate affidavit with the Commission with a copy of it duly endorsed to the Appellant/ Complainant deposing categorically that all the relevant information has already been provided in response to RTI Application in question along with bifurcation of calculation sheet of RTI fees and no additional information is left at their office.
The above said affidavits should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal(s)/complaint(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स$यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 14