Central Information Commission
M Vallinarayanan vs Ministry Of Culture on 20 March, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MCULT/A/2024/103724
Shri M Vallinarayanan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Culture ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.03.2025
Date of Decision : 18.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.08.2024
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 14.09.2023
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 01.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.08.2024 seeking inspection of documents with respect to the following information:-
"........I need to see regards, Name List all employees including Contract & daily wages, Attendance Record, Contract Worker Pay Roll, Payroll related file of our South Zone Cultural Centre, Thanjavur from the year 2010 to 2023. Files related signed application of all contract staff, Appointment orders, Director's letter of concurrence of appointment by whom each employees, list of educational qualifications for contract staff, list of years of contract for contract staff at this Centre, list of posts held by contract staff & Consultants, Detail of orders obtained from the Ministry of Culture, Government of India for the previous appointment of Contract staff including Consultants from FY 2010 to 2023 A list of how much funding has been received from the Ministry of Culture from FY 2010 to 2023.
And List of expenditure from FY 2010 to 2023, printout of the computer entries of related transactions, name list of permanent employees under programmes & Administration, Detail of post's name & list of permanent employees, attendance register of permanent employees. Records of permanent employees like Service ledger, file of approved salary of these employees, list of educational qualification of appointed all contract employees, Detail of Memorandum of Understanding signed by Southern Cultural Centre with the Ministry of Culture, Delhi every year from 2010 to 2023.Page 1 of 3
I request to South Zone Cultural Centre that permit me to inspect their office and see all required documents and take photocopies with Photo/video clippings on all necessary documents under section 2 (j) of the U.S. Act. As a senior citizen, I am requesting again to permit me to do this work as per RTI rules along with my one accompany person with me at the earliest."
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.09.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 26.02.2025 has been received from the Appellant seeking inspection of the records.
Written submission dated 07.03.2025 has been received from the CPIO, South Zone Cultural Centre stating as under:
1) The appellant Sh. M. Vallinarayanan residing at L-238, Housing Unit, Nasiyanoor Road Scheme-II, Erode, Tamil Nadu is a habitual RTI applicant to South Zone Cultural Centre, Thanjavur.
2) The South Zone Cultural Centre, Thanjavur is an autonomous organisation registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and is run under the overall control of Ministry of Culture, Government of India, New Delhi.
3) Presently minimum number of staff only are working in South Zone Cultural Centre, Thanjavur.
4) It is submitted that the above said appellant Sh. M. Vallinarayanan have made a number of RTI applications to South Zone Cultural Centre, Thanjavur and have been promptly replied with in the stipulated time. Take for instance, the appellant Sh. M. Vallinarayanan have made 17 (seventeen) RTI applications to the CPIO/ Appellate Authority, South Zone Cultural Centre, Thanjavur from 10/03/2020 to 22/11/2022 i.e. in the past two years alone.
5) The appellant Sh. M. Vallinarayanan of Erode, Tamil Nadu has also been permitted by the Appellant Authority cum Director, South Zone Cultural Centre, Thanjavur to inspect certain document as requested by the applicant Sh. M. Vallinarayanan and the said applicant visited the South Zone Cultural Centre, Thanjavur office and received a volume of photo copies of the required documents (89 pages) as the requested by him.
6) Apart from the above instance, the applicant have sent his RTI application 16 times in the years 2020-2022 (2 years) and the applications had been properly replied by the CPIO/ Appellate Authority cum Director, South Zone Cultural Centre, Thanjavur with in the Stipulated time (115 pages reply received by the applicant apart from 89 pages of documents in person) ................................. .............................. .................... ...............
10) Even after receiving a voluminous of information from to CPIO/Appellate Authority, South Zone Cultural Centre, Thanjavur as per his request, Sh. M. Vallinarayanan, the RTI applicant continuously harassing the South Zone Cultural Centre Administration in the name of RTI applications and is wasting the precious Page 2 of 3 time of South Zone Cultural Centre staff and against the welfare of the General Public especially the poor artistes.
11) The RTI applications received from Sh. M. Vallinarayanan, the appellant and the reply sent to him through post/reply received in person after scrutinizing the necessary files and the photocopies of documents received by the above RTI applications Sh. M. Vallinarayanan is also uploaded for ready reference.
12) Based on the above records it is submitted that all available information has already been given to the appellant Sh. M. Vallinarayanan and the rest could not be collated being voluminous and collation of the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Accordingly, the CPIO is humbly submit the above recordings for your esteemed court and submit our prayers to render justice.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri R Umashankar - CPIO, SZCC, Thanjavur was present through video conference during hearing.
Both parties reiterated their respective contentions, the Respondent placing reliance on the aforementioned written submission in response to the Appellant's allegation of non compliance of the RTI Act by the Respondent. The Respondent referred to the voluminous information already provided to the Appellant in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, in response to his queries.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, in terms of the provisions of the Act, despite the repeated quest for voluminous information by the Appellant. The written submission dated 07.03.2025 submitted by the Respondent is self explanatory and hence the Respondent is directed to send a copy of the same, with the relevant annexures to the Appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report before the Commission within a week thereafter. Since the response of the PIO is legally appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)