Central Information Commission
Sreeramappa vs National Commission For Scheduled ... on 3 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग,मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/NCFSC/C/2024/610508
CIC/NCFSC/A/2024/610509
Shri Sreeramappa
आवेदनकर्ता /Applicant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, National Commission for Scheduled Castes ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.01.2025
Date of Decision : 30.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 30.08.2022
PIO replied on : NA
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 12.03.2024
[Both cases arise out of the same RTI application and hence they are
clubbed for the convenience of adjudication]
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Applicant filed an RTI application dated 30.08.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. W.r.t No. S-58/AE-5/2011/SSW-I, dated 06.01.2022 signed on 17/01/2022
2. During the period of Hon'ble Member Shri M. Shivanna from 04-11-2010 to 03-11-2013, initiated Review & Monitoring of rules of reservation and service safeguard in NPCIL/DAE.
3. The case is pending in NCSC since 2004, information regarding time frame to Review & Monitoring of rules of reservation and service safeguard in NPCIL/DAE along with DR. SREERAMAPPA grievances. With reference to the above point number 1-3 Requesting provide the records of correspondence, communication, pointwise wise NPCIL/DAE response, noting sheet, investigation reports and action taken as per investigation report (total file required) etc"Page 1 of 4
Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within the time limit, the Applicant filed a First Appeal. The FAA, Director, NCSC vide order dated 22.09.2023 held as under:-
"2. And, whereas the undersigned has taken the cognizance of the said appeal under Sub- Section (1) of Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Whereas the undersigned called the concerned CPIO alongwith all relevant records and files to discuss the appeal and it is observed that the CPIO, NCSC has transfer the online RTI application dated 30.08.2022 to Department of Atomic Energy on 21.11.2022 under section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 as the mater pertains to Department of Atomic Energy (copy enclosed) as per record."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Applicant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submissions dated 18.01.2025, 21.01.2025 and 29.01.2025 have been received from the Applicant and duly taken on record.
A submission dated 20.01.2025 has been received from the Respondent-PIO - Department of Social Justice & Empowerment indicating that reply dated 26.12.2022 had been duly sent to the Applicant. Likewise submission dated 28.01.2025 has been received from NPCL, Mumbai, dated 20.01.2025 has been received from the President's Secretariat, dated 24.01.2025 has been received from the Department of Atomic Energy. It pertinent to note that the CPIO, NPCL has stated as under:
"6. It Is further submitted that Dr. Sreeramappa is Ex-Medical Officer, MO/F, Tarapur Maharashtra Site, NPCIL.Till date NPCIL has received more than 100 applications from Dr. Sreeramappa on similar matter .The applicant is habitual of generally raising RTI queries which are not specific, contains vague general statements, sometimes very lengthy containing about 70-80 questions, and Involving various agencies like DAE/NCSC/CVC, NPCIL and its attached Offices etc. Most of the queries are not clear. All this creates a lot of pressure on the deemed PIOs to understand and respond to various time consuming RTI queries of similar nature within the timeline and involving no larger public interest.
However, all efforts are made by various section/groups of NPCIL to provide desired information on time.
It is also submitted that the applicant is habitual of sending e-mails directly to various agencies citing various CIC Decisions even if there are no Hearing Notices or directives to the PIOs from Hon'ble CIC/concerned Ministry/authorities. All this creates a lot of administrative confusion and wastage of time.
It is also submitted that recently, Hon'ble Commissioner Madam, Smt Anandi Ramalingam has passed an Order citing misuse of RTI by the Appellant vide CIC decision dated 24.01.2025 on 2nd Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/143574 of Shri Sreeramappa in his similar RTI application seeking inputs on around 133 Vigilance Complaints that he has Page 2 of 4 raised with CVC. Various agencies like CVC/DAE/NPCIL has responded to the RTI application.
The submission dated 28.01.2025 from the CPIO, NCSC has also been taken on record which reveals that the RTI application was duly transferred the RTI application dated 30.08.2022 to the Department of Atomic Energy on 21.11.2022.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri K Vinod - CPIO/US, Department of Atomic Energy [DAE], Ms. Shradhha Gupta - CPIO, NPCL, Shri J Minz - CPIO, NCSC and Ms. Ankita - LDC were present during hearing.
The Applicant contended that he is not satisfied with the information furnished to him and points out that even the earlier order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Commission has not been complied with so far by the Respondent. The Respondents from NCSC, NPCL and DAE contended that action in terms of the provisions of the RTI act had been duly taken by each of them, furnishing whatever information was held in their custody. The Respondent from DAE stated that complying with the directions issued by the CIC vide order dated 02.09.2024 in the second appeal number CIC/DOATE/A/2023/130368, the Applicant was repeatedly requested to visit the office of the Respondent, but the Applicant never turned up to inspect the documents.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case and deliberations between parties reveal that the aforementioned direction of inspection passed by the Commission vide order dated 02.09.2024 could not be complied due to the fact that no mutual agreement could be reached between the parties about inspection.
CIC/NCFSC/A/2024/610509 In the given circumstances, the Commission hereby directs the concerned PIO, DAE to grant another opportunity of inspection of relevant records vide order dated 02.09.2024 to the Applicant on 10.02.2025 at 3pm. The Respondent must strictly adhere to the provisions of the Section 8 and 9 RTI Act and redact any information which falls under any of the exemption clauses by applying the severability clause as laid down under Section 10 of the RTI Act. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided upon payment of prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. After inspection of records, the Respondent- PIO, DAE shall submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week.
CIC/NCFSC/C/2024/610508 The Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, wherein the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful Page 3 of 4 concealment of information. From the deliberation between parties, it appears that the Respondent had sent responses based on information available on record with them, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case and hence no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.
The cases are disposed off on the above terms.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)