Central Information Commission
Kamal Dhingra vs Csir-Hrdg, New Delhi on 21 April, 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/CHRDG/A/2024/615950
Shri Kamal Dhingra ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, CSIR-HRDG, New Delhi ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.04.2025
Date of Decision : 04.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.01.2024
PIO replied on : 04.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 24.02.2024
First Appellate Order on : 20.03.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 19.04.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.01.2024 seeking information on approximately 35 points and more, some of which are as under:-
B. Information requested in public interest CSIR Cx- Probability-(ILLEGAL RELEASE OF GOVT. FUNDS OF RS. 9,58,333. THIS PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS NOT PROVIDING DOCUMENTS EVEN UNDER RTI ACT, 2005)- Provide all copies of notings and correspondence portion of file no. 37(1692)/17-EMR-II, Shri Sathees C. Raghavan, copy of affidavit/agreement (Form-A) submitted by Dr. Sathees C. Raghavan. Information/copies not provided in earlier RTI. Hence Information requested again. CUSTODIANS OF THIS FILE ARE HIDING THE DOCUMENTS/COPY OF AFFIDAVIT/AGREEMENT/FORM-A/COPIES OF NOTINGS BY NOT PROVIDING THEM REQUESTED EARLIER UNDER RTI ACT, 2005. C. Information requested in public interest Probability- All notings related to the irregular appointment of scientists in CSIR labs in 2011 in which Dr. S.K. Brahmachari, the then DGSIR was chargesheeted with major penalty. Provide Copy of charge memo OM No. C-11018/02/2015-Vig dated 21.8.15, OM No. C- 11018/02/2015-Vig dated 5.11.15, OM No. C-11018/02/2015-Vig (i) dated 5.11.15, OM No. C-11018/02/2015-Vig dated 14.1.16. Copies of notings of approval done by Dr. Brahmachari from 24.8.11 to 30.9.11 regarding appointment and absorption of 52 engineering graduates who completed 2 year post graduate research training programme in engineering (PGRPE) from Academy of Scientific Innovative Research (AcSIR), who were appointed without an open advertisement and without giving opportunity to SC/ST/OBC candidates thereby violating recruitment guidelines of the Govt. of India. Provide names and copies of Page 1 of 6 appointment letters of these 52 engineering graduates. All copies of orders/notings/chargesheets related to disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Brahmachari from the process of initiation till conclusion. Provide all reports of the FFC constituted for this purpose. Information/documents requested to understand/calculate the losses caused to the Govt. of India in public interest.
D. Information requested in public interest - Due to carelessness, few years back answer sheet trunk of candidates in r/o joint CSIR -UGC Net examination was misplaced/stolen from train thereby endangering the future of bright young children of India. 5 officers were entrusted with the responsibility for the security of that answer sheet trunk. Please provide action taken by exam unit to find that trunk. Provide all copies of action taken/letter sent to Indian railways. The exam was re-conducted thereby increasing heavy expenditure for the Govt. of India. Pls. provide full details of the Govt. expenditure incurred in re-conduct of the exam giving complete expenditure details headwise. Please provide copies of all bills of Govt. expenditure done on the re-conduct of exam. As Govt. of India incurred heavy losses due to this lapse/re-conduct of the exam, please provide all reports of the inquiry committee/Fact finding committee which was constituted to look into this lapse. Give full details of this case including providing all copies of all notings clearly mentioning year & month of exam, name & address of centre of the exam whose trunk was misplaced, no. of answer sheets in that trunk, answer sheets lost of which subject, name of the coordinator. There is probability that the concerned person responsible for this serious lapse was able to go scot free in this case due to his close connection with Dr. S.K. Brahmachari, the then DGCSIR. E. Information requested in public interest - Possibility- There was a fraud regarding misuse of staff car/hired private dly in TKDL. Fraud/manipulated bills were submitted for reimbursement related to staff car/hired private dly during the tenure of Dr. Archana Sharma, Head TKDL. Chargesheets have also been filed in this case. Give full case details. Provide copies of all administrative/legal notings related to this case of Dr. Archana Sharma, Head TKDL through digital mode. Provide log book copies of staff car/private hired dly usage in TKDL during the full tenure of Dr. Archana Sharma as Head, TKDL. Staff car maintenance details/petrol expenditure details during the tenure of Dr. Archana Sharma as Head, TKDL. Total no. of staff cars/hired private dly in TKDL during the tenure of Dr. Archana Sharma as Head, TKDL. Provide full details alongwith copies of bills paid for staff car/private hired dly during the entire tenure of Dr. Archana Sharma as Head, TKDL. Details of transport allowance paid to Dr. Archana Sharma during her tenure as Head, TKDL. Copies of pay slips of Dr. Archana Sharma during her tenure as Head, TKDL. Full Details of action taken by CSIR Hqrs after detection of this fraud i.e. appointment details of the presenting officer to pursue this case and all other relevant details. Provide copies of reports of fact finding committee constituted for this case. Give Full details of persons who have been chargesheeted in this case including providing copies of chargesheets. Copy of chargesheets is requested to know/understand the fraud in detail and calculate amount of probable loss caused to the Govt. of India. Etc."
The CPIO, CSIR-HRDG vide letter dated 04.03.2024 replied as under:-
"B. Reply received from EMR-II was furnished vide reply dated 23.02.2024. C. Does not pertain to CSIR-HRDG.
D. Information has not been received from DPIO, Exam Unit. E. Does not pertain to CSIR Complex.
F. Does not pertain to Establishment CSIR Complex.
G. Does not pertain to CSIR-HRDG H. Does not pertain to CSIR-HRDG Page 2 of 6 I. Reply received from CSIR Complex, Finance was furnished vide reply dated 23.02.2024.
J. Does not pertain to CSIR-HRDG. Etc."
A copy of the reply received from the EMR-II, as mentioned above has been attached with the PIO's reply.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.02.2024. The FAA, CSIR-HRDG vide order dated 20.03.2024 stated as under:-
"Shri Kamal Dhingra, CSIR-CSIO Chandigarh had filed an RTI registration no. (CSHRD/R/X/24/00001) and not satisfied with the response, Mr Dhingra has filed his First Appeal vide Registration no. CSHRD/A/E/24/00002 as some of the questions raised by him were not replied to or were incomplete. It is hereby advised that all those dealing with the respective questions may submit their response directly to Shri Kamal Dhingra, the appellant with a copy to Ms Nita Singh, US & CPIO, CSIR-HRDG within 15 days time."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submissions dated 11.03.2025 and 18.03.2025 have been received from the Appellant contending that information sought by him has not been provided by the Respondent.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Present through video-conferencing Respondent: Ms. Vandana D. Singh, DS/CPIO, CSIR-HQ and Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar- CPIO/US, CSIR participated in the hearing.
The Appellant stated that he was not satisfied with the information furnished by the Respondent and contended that there has been gross violation of the provisions of RTI Act. He requested that the PIO and FAA may be directed to furnish the information sought.
The Respondent on the other hand stated that information available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act. The Respondent further averred during the course of hearing that the Appellant had filed numerous RTI applications seeking humungous amounts of information. However, all the RTI applications have been duly responded with information available on records and in some cases even inspection of records has been offered to him. The Respondent further mentioned that another Second appeal number CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/609075 seeking almost identical information has already been decided on 05.06.2024 by this Bench of the Commission, allowing inspection of records to the Appellant.
Decision:
1. Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had duly furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the Act. It is noted from the records submitted by the parties that not only has the Appellant been seeking voluminous amount of information through repetitive RTI applications, but he has Page 3 of 6 also filed fresh RTI cases alleging non-compliance of his decisions of the Commission in most of his earlier cases, while he should have filed non-compliance cases, without multiplying the number of cases.
2. Considering the facts of this case and nearly 28 cases based on similar premises filed by the same Appellant and already decided by this Commission, it is worthwhile to mention a similar instance wherein this Commission in its decision dated 30.06.2015 in file no. CIC/YA/A/2014/001071, 001123,001210 while disposing of a batch of fifteen matters of a litigant named one Sh. M Danasegar had held as follows:
"......The Commission finds this case to be a classic instance of blatant misuse of RTI Act by the appellant, who is a disgruntled employee of the same organisation, through relentlessly filing of a series of RTI applications to harass officials of a public authority. The information sought in most of his RTI applications has no public interest at all and veers around the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. In the process of seeking the same, the appellant has resorted to reckless data mining on a humongous scale. Still, information has been provided by the respondent authorities as per record on some points and the rest denied for the reason that it is either voluminous or not available or relates to clarification/interpretation. The appellant, motivated by personal interest, has clearly sought such information with the vengeful motive to harass the officers through a flurry of RTI applications. The RTI Act cannot be allowed to be misused or abused and to become a tool of oppression or for intimidation of officials striving to do their duty. ..."
Emphasis supplied
3. Filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions is an abuse of the process of law per se. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. The Apex Court had discussed the issue of wasteful vexatious litigation in great detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para
11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their Page 4 of 6 faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied
4. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed that:
"........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 beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied
5. 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, vide its order dated 08.10.2015 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..."
The aforesaid dicta essentially prove that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized problem and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not absolute.
6. The Apex Court in the celebrated decision The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, [A.I.R 2011 SC 3336] has categorically cautioned thus:
"...The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. ... The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well- informed democracy is transparency. However it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 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 government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use.." ().
Emphasis supplied
7. In the similar lines, the Apex Court vide its landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., had held as follows:
Page 5 of 6"...The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interest. ...................................
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............................. 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..."
Emphasis supplied
8. In view of the settled position as enunciated in the above decisions by various Courts and the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that undoubtedly the modus operandi of filing such large number of irrelevant and unrelated RTI applications is neither proper nor acceptable, in the larger public interest. Hence, the Appellant is advised to refrain from misusing the RTI Act.
Since the response of the PIO is found legally appropriate, no further intervention is warranted 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 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)