Central Information Commission
Patta Rama Apparow vs Ministry Of Steel on 19 October, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/CC/A/2014/000137-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/002564-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/000138-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/002625-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/000139-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/002626-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/000280-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/002635-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/000281-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/002636-YA
CIC/CC/A/014/000306-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/002637-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/000500-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/002638-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/000669-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/002659-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/000694-YA CIC/CC/A/2015/001951-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/000796-YA CIC/CC/A/2015/001953-YA
CIC/YA/A/2014/002624-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/000853-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/002321-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/000854-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/002531-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/000855-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/002632-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/000856-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/003038-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/000857-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/003061-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/001479-YA CIC/SS/A/2014/000129-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/001674-YA CIC/CC/A/2015/001998-YA
CIC/CC/A/2014/001687-YA CIC/YA/A/2015/002057
CIC/CC/A/2014/002103-YA CIC/YA/A/2015/002058
CIC/CC/A/2014/002320-YA CIC/YA/A/2016/000232
CIC/YA/A/2016/000233
CIC/YA/A/2016/000234
CIC/YA/A/2016/000235
CIC/YA/A/2016/000236
Date of Hearing : 25.07.2016
Date of Decision : 17.10.2016
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Patta Rama Appa Row,
Vishakhapatnam
Respondent : CPIO, Rashtriya ISPAT Nigam
Limited, Vishakhapatnam
Through:
Shri M.K. Goyal, NTPC Delhi
Shri Devender from Vizag NTPC
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Since the parties are same in the above mentioned appeals, these
appeals are clubbed together for hearing and disposal to avoid
multiplicity of the proceedings.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case No. RTI filed no. CPIO reply First appeal FAA order 2nd appeal
filed filed on
0137 21.02.2014 09.05.2014 25.03.2014 No order 05.08.2014
passed
0138 19.02.2014 09.07.2014 25.03.2014 No order 05.08.2014
passed
0139 19.02.2014 No reply 25.03.2014 No order 05.08.2014
passed
0280 24.03.2014 14.05.2014 03.05.2014 No order 21.08.2014
passed
0281 24.03.2014 No reply 03.05.2014 No order 21.08.2014
passed
0306 02.04.2014 No reply 12.05.2014 No order 20.08.2014
passed
0500 11.03.2014 08.04.2014 03.05.2014 No order 20.08.2014
passed
0669 21.02.2014 09.05.2014 25.03.2014 No order 04.09.2014
passed
0694 19.02.2014 27.03.2014 25.03.2014 No order 04.09.2014
passed
0796 09.03.2014 23.06.2014 12.05.2014 No order 19.08.2014
passed
Case No. RTI filed no. CPIO reply First appeal FAA order 2nd appeal
filed filed on
2564 31.07.2014 08.10.2014 06.09.2014 No order 20.11.2014
passed
2625 31.07.2014 No reply 06.09.2014 No order 19.11.2014
passed
2626 27.07.2014 26.08.2014 06.09.2014 No order 19.11.2014
passed
2635 31.07.2014 No reply 06.09.2014 No order 19.11.2014
pass
2636 01.02.2014 05.11.2014 07.08.2014 No order 19.11.2014
passed
2637 27.07.2014 No reply 06.09.2014 No order 19.11.2014
passed
2638 31.07.2014 No reply 06.09.2014 No order 19.11.2014
passed
2659 31.07.2014 No reply 06.09.2014 No order 20.11.2014
passed
1951 12.04.2014 No reply 07.08.2014 No order 27.02.2015
passed
1953 06.11.2014 No reply 19.12.2014 No order 24.02.2015
passed
2624 03.04.2014 23.06.2014 12.05.2014 No order 19.11.2014
passed
0853 04.03.2014 14.05.2014 07.08.2014 No order 12.09.2014
passed
0854 21.04.2014 No reply 07.08.2014 No order 12.09.2014
passed
0855 05.04.2014 No reply 07.08.2014 No order 12.09.2014
passed
0856 04.04.2014 No reply 07.08.2014 No order 12.09.2014
passed
0857 20.04.2014 22.05.2014 07.08.2014 No order 12.09.2014
passed
1479 22.02.2014 No reply 25.03.2014 No order 16.10.2014
passed
1674 22.02.2014 No reply 25.03.2014 No order 15.10.2014
passed
1687 19.03.2014 21.05.2014 03.05.2014 No order 16.10.2014
passed
2103 26.02.2014 No reply 28.03.2014 No order 16.10.2014
passed
2320 11.03.2014 07.08.2014 07.08.2014 No order 19.11.2014
passed
2321 31.07.2014 28.10.2014 06.09.2014 No order 19.11.2014
passed
2531 20.03.2014 27.08.2014 03.05.2014 No order 20.11.2014
passed
2632 31.07.2014 15.09.2014 06.09.2014 No order 20.11.2014
passed
3038 28.10.2013 27.11.2013 03.12.2013 10.12.2013 16.12.2014
3061 01.02.2014 No reply 03.05.2014 No order 17.10.2014
passed
0129 28.08.2013 No reply 21.10.2013 No order 24.12.2013
& passed
06.12.2013
1998 06.11.2014 No reply 19.12.2014 No order 25.02.2015
passed
2057 19.03.2015 No reply 26.06.2015 No order 29.09.2015
passed
2058 16.04.2015 No reply 26.06.2015 No order 29.09.2015
passed
0232 17.04.2015 25.05.2015 26.06.2015 11.08.2015 13.01.2016
0233 19.04.2015 25.05.2015 26.06.2015 11.08.2015 13.01.2016
0234 04.04.2015 21.07.2015 26.06.2015 11.08.2015 13.01.2016
0235 04.04.2015 20.07.2015 26.06.2015 11.08.2015 13.01.2016
0236 13.01.2015 30.07.2015 26.06.2015 11.08.2015 13.01.2016
Since all of the aforementioned appeals are between the same parties,
hence they are clubbed together for the purpose of expeditious disposal.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000137-YA
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 21.02.2014, the appellant sought information under 9 points dealing with the following:
The period since which 50 Ton Rail Crane is lying in LWRS for repair, expenditure incurred for Rail Crane repair, employees engaged and man power engaged for the repair, type of accident occurred with the Rail Crane, type of repair carried out and date of completion of repair and certification of the capacity, quality, and strength, the dates on which Road crane was brought from FMD during the period when Rail crane was not in Operation including its hours of utilisation, date of communication from Traffic to FMD regarding requirement of Road Crane along with copy of the same, the details of accidents taken place on Rail tracks in last 10 years, property lost due to accidents since last 20 years and the details of the employees who have expired and became physically handicapped.
The CPIO replied vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2864 dated 09.05.2014, furnishing point wise information of available information. In respect of the information which was not available in compiled form, the Appellant was invited to inspect the relevant documents. However, not satisfied with the CPIO's reply the appellant preferred first appeal which was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, the Respondent has submitted a written submission which indicates that despite opportunity granted to the appellant to inspect the records, he did not respond nor did he turn up for inspection. The Respondent further submitted that no copy of First Appeal was provided by the appellant to the Respondents.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000138-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 19.02.2014, the appellant sought information regarding procedure and guidelines to accumulate EL&HPL for any Employee of RINL as follows:
Earlier procedure and guide lines to accumulate EL&HPL for Employees of RINL, copy of DPE guide lines and procedures, confirmation of collecting 4.50 paisa from executive, 0.50 paisa from non-executives and reason for the same, present procedure and guide lines to accumulate EL&HPL for any Employee of RINL, copy of DPE guide lines and procedures, system being followed in collecting Electrical Charges from Non-executives employees and Executives, the authority who decided to collect different electricity charges for executives and non-executives along with the copy of framed rule or Government Order, the time frame of wage revision of executives and copy of DPE guide lines.
The CPIO replied vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2856 dated 09.07.2014 providing point wise information in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant. Not satisfied with the PIO's reply, the appellant preferred first appeal but the same remained undecided. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, the Respondent has submitted a written submission which indicates that despite opportunity granted to the appellant to inspect the records, he did not respond nor did he turn up for inspection. The Respondent further submitted that no copy of First Appeal was provided by the appellant to the Respondents.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000139-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 19.02.2014, the appellant sought information under 5 points regarding an accident which took place at BF1 by loco motive no 8. The query was as follows:
No. of Contract workers injured in the accident took place by locomotive no. 8 on 11th February, 2014 along with their names, whether anybody has died, the name of the Contractor who has paid 6.5 lakhs to the deceased employee and the details of Safety Committee Report along with a copy.
The CPIO replied vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2857 dated 27.03.2014, furnishing point wise information in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant. The appellant preferred first appeal but the same remained undecided. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, the Respondent has submitted a written submission which indicates that information as available on record has already been provided. The Respondent further submitted that no copy of First Appeal was provided by the appellant to the Respondents.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000280-YA Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.03.2014 seeking information under 6 points as follows:
No. of Police cases filed against RINL Union Leaders from Jan 1995 to Dec 2013 along with case numbers;
no. of employees and Union Leaders involved in the each case; no. of times cases were posted along with date and case no.; case wise attendance list with date;
who represented Management at the Court;
expenditure incurred on cases filed on Union Leaders by the Management.
The CPIO vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2914 dated 14.05.2014 furnished the available information in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant. However, dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred first appeal which was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, the Respondent has submitted that information as available on record has already been provided by them. The Respondents state that no copy of First Appeal was provided by the appellant to them thereafter.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000281-YA Information sought and background of the case:
The appellant sought information under 6 points vide RTI application dated 24.03.2014. The queries included:
The report given by IR Section on a day of obstruction i.e. on 01.02.2012 by displaced persons in front of Main Building, no. of Union leaders participated as per IR Section report along with copies, No. of Union leaders delivered speech as per IR Section Staff Report dated 01.02.2012 along with copies, period of time the entry was obstructed, details of the report given by displaced contract labour and displaced persons to CMD along with copies, copy of DARS sheet dated 01-02-2012 of ARP No. 2 of Traffic Department.
The appellant preferred a First Appeal upon non receipt of any response from the CPIO. However, as per Appellant's submissions, the First Appeal was not disposed of and thus aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, the Respondents have submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2915 dated 12.09.2014 the CPIO had furnished point wise information in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant, copy whereof has also been placed on record during the course of hearing. It has further been pointed out by the Respondent that an appeal dated 21.09.2014 was filed by the Appellant on being dissatisfied with the CPIO'S reply dated 12.09.2014. The First Appeal was decided by the FAA's Order dated 09.10.2014, whereby the CPIO's reply was upheld. Copy of the FAA's order has been placed on record by the Respondent.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000306-YA (Same as case number CIC/CC/A/2014/000856-YA) Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant has filed an RTI application dated 02.04.2014 the information sought wherein is bilingual, which when translated emerges as:
No. of Chargemen, Foremen and other employees working in General Shift in PSY-SSY operation of Traffic Department till 01-04- 2014 and from 02-04-2014, details of jobs done by all the chargemen and foremen in PSY-SSY operations, job wise employees endorsed, no. of employees working in General Shift under Dy. Manager, PSY-SSY, types of jobs being carried out by them, no. of letters sent to Dy. Manager, PSY-SSY by the Management and whether Dy. Manager, PSY-SSY, Traffic, has sent any recommendations to VSP Management to send letters to the respective departments for inviting Union leaders to any meetings or conferences.
It has been submitted by the Appellant that upon non receipt of any response from the CPIO, he filed a First appeal which was also not disposed of. Thus the aggrieved appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, the CPIO has submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2930 dated 13.09.2014, CPIO had furnished point wise information in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has been filed alongwith the submission by the Respondent. The Respondent has further submitted that two appeals dated 21.09.2014 were received from the appellant who was not satisfied with the information furnished by CPIO. The FAA disposed of the First Appeals vide Orders dated 04.10.2014 & 07.10.2014 wherein the Appellate Authorities had agreed with the decision of CPIO. Copies of the FAAs' orders have been placed on record by the Respondent.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000500-YA Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.03.2014 seeking information under 5 points as follows:
The list of all the Shift Incharges of all brigades and yards of the Traffic department of VSP as per seniority along with their designations, clarification regarding usage of flags while moving the loco motives of the Operation section of the Traffic department in day time, clarification regarding usage of safety helmet and shoe while using locomotive by the staff of Operation section of the Traffic department, year wise no. of flags purchased since last 10 years, details of yards to which these flags were supplied, no. of helmets brought from Central Stores to Traffic department from January, 2000 to February, 2014, no. of helmets issued and employees issued with the helmet.
CPIO vide letter dated 08.04.2014 furnished point wise information as available on record. In respect of the information which is not available in compiled form, the Appellant was invited to inspect the relevant documents. Not satisfied with the reply, the appellant preferred first appeal which was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission. Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, the Respondent has submitted vide written submission that information as available has already been provided to the appellant and despite opportunity granted to the appellant to inspect the records, he did not respond nor did he turn up for inspection. The Respondent further submitted that no copy of First Appeal was provided by the appellant to the Respondents.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000669-YA (Same as the case number CIC/CC/A/2014/000137-YA) Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 21.02.2014, the appellant sought information under 9 points dealing with the following:
The period since which 50 Ton Rail Crane is lying in LWRS for repair, expenditure incurred for Rail Crane repair, employees engaged and man power engaged for the repair, type of accident occurred with the Rail Crane, type of repair carried out and date of completion of repair and certification of the capacity, quality, and strength, the dates on which Road crane was brought from FMD during the period when Rail crane was not in Operation including its hours of utilisation, date of communication from Traffic to FMD regarding requirement of Road Crane along with copy of the same, the details of accidents taken place on Rail tracks in last 10 years, property lost due to accidents since last 20 years and the details of the employees who have expired and became physically handicapped.
The CPIO replied vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2864 dated 09.05.2014, furnishing point wise information of available information. In respect of the information which was not available in compiled form, the Appellant was invited to inspect the relevant documents. However, not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred first appeal which remained non disposed. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, the Respondent has submitted a written submission stating information as available on record has been provided to the appellant and despite opportunity granted to the appellant to inspect the records, he did not respond nor did he turn up for inspection. The Respondent further submitted that copy of First Appeal was not provided by the appellant to the Respondents.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000694-YA (Same as file number CIC/CC/A/2014/000139-YA) Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 19.02.2014, the appellant sought information under 5 points regarding an accident which took place at BF1 by loco motive no 8. The query was as follows:
No. of Contract workers injured in the accident took place by locomotive no. 8 on 11th February, 2014 along with their names, whether anybody has died, the name of the Contractor who has paid 6.5 lakhs to the deceased employee and the details of Safety Committee Report along with a copy.
The CPIO replied vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2857 dated 27.03.2014, furnishing point wise information in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant. The appellant preferred first appeal but the same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, the Respondent has submitted written submissions stating that while available information has already been provided to the appellant, despite opportunity granted to the appellant to inspect the records for remaining information, he did not respond nor did he turn up for inspection. The Respondent further submitted that copy of First Appeal was not provided by the appellant to the Respondents.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000796-YA Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant sought information vide RTI application dated 09.03.2014 under 8 points as follows:
Length of railway line available in Traffic department before starting of expansion, length of railway line removed before starting of expansion, no. of rails, wooden sleepers, steel sleepers and fish plates removed before expansion and handed over to Traffic department by the persons who removed, no. of sleepers and fish plates used for laying each kilometre of railway track.
The CPIO responded vide letter dated 23.06.2014 but did not furnish information on point nos. 2,4,5 & 6. The aggrieved appellant preferred first appeal but the same was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, Respondents submitted that they have provided all information in a point-wise form, as available on record vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2886 dated 23.06.2014, in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant. Copy of the same has been placed on record by the Respondent.
CIC/CC/A/2014/002564-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 31.07.2014, the appellant sought information under 6 points regarding VSP consider the disability percentage give by Government King George Hospital or by VSGH. The queries were the following:
Whether RINL, VSP is considering the disability percentage given by Government King George Hospital or the disability percentage given by VSGH, copy of Official Orders or rules which shows the disability certificate produced by the Government Hospital i.e. King George Hospital is not valid and the disability certificate produced by VSGH only is valid, if exists, the rule through which the percentage of disability is decided, If the leg of any worker is removed up to the knee in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant along with the copy, percentage of disability as decided by VSGH if the hand of any worker is removed up to the shoulder in VSP, percentage of disability certified by VSGH, if a worker loses half of his one leg and half of his one hand, the rule through which percentage of disability is certified, possibility of providing employment to a person who is certified as 100% disable by the board of Government King George Hospital and there is no possibility of improvement in future and maximum percentage of disability accessible for anybody, to provide employment in VSP-RINL.
CPIO vide letter dated 08.10.2014, furnished link for the information sought. The appellant preferred first appeal but the same remained undecided. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, the Respondent appeared and reiterated the facts of the case stating that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3090 dated 08.10.2014, CPIO had furnished the information that it is available on web and the link details were provided. Some of the information sought was hypothetical and not clear. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has been submitted before the Commission.
CIC/CC/A/2014/002625-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 31.07.2014, the appellant sought information under 5 points regarding J C M system.
Upon non receipt of any response from the CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal but the same was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The Respondent stated that they did not have the specific details of the RTI application corresponding to the CIC appeal numbers. However, they submitted that information as furnished against RTI applications dated 31.07.2014 which match these queries have been replied vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3094 dated 15.03.2016, in a point wise manner against queries of the Appellant. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has been duly filed before the Commission.
CIC/CC/A/2014/002635-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 31.07.2014, the appellant sought information regarding list of directors' tours of VSO from 2008 to 2014. Upon non receipt of any response from the CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal but the same was not disposed. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
The respondent has not furnished any comments with respect to this file.
CIC/CC/A/2014/002638-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 31.07.2014, the appellant sought information under 8 points regarding official tours to Kolkata by the present General Manager (GM) from 2005 to 2014.
Upon non receipt of any response from the CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal but the same was not decided. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The Respondent stated that they did not have the specific details of the RTI application corresponding to the CIC appeal numbers. However, they submitted that information as furnished against RTI applications dated 31.07.2014 which match these queries have been replied vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3092 dated 15.11.2014, in a point wise manner to the Appellant.
In respect of the information which was not available in compiled form, the Appellant was invited to inspect the relevant documents. However, the Appellant did not respond for the inspection as on date. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has been filed before the Commission.
CIC/CC/A/2014/002659-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 31.07.2014, the appellant sought information under 6 points regarding DARS Sheet ARP No. 2, dated 25.01.2014 pertaining to in sheet & out sheet.
Upon non receipt of any response from the CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal but the same remained non disposed. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission. Respondent in his written submission has stated specifically that they are clueless about the exact RTI query and hence have not given an exact response in this case.
CIC/CC/A/2014/002626-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 27.07.2014, the appellant sought information under 6 points regarding list of cases in chronological order registered by the Vigilance Department of VSP. His queries were as under:
No. of cases identified by the Vigilance department of VSP (RINL) as unjust, wrong way of spending Company‟s assets and the Public funds and earning of money in unfair way during the period from January, 2005 to July, 2014, no. of cases filed on workers, Executives and Contractors during the period from January, 2005 to July, 2014, details along with copies of notesheets, the name and designation of the executives working in Vigilance department of VSP (RINL), who are from Central Vigilance Commission and from RINL, along with the date from which they have been working in Vigilance department during the period from January, 2005 to July, 2014, whether Vigilance Department taken any action on the issue related to Ballast in the Permanent way section of Traffic Department and identified any violation of rules, if so, the copies of those notesheets, whether any attempt was made to concentrate on the issue of tours of VSP Officers and the Union leaders and the unjust bills produced by them after returning from tours during the period from 2005 to July, 2014. If so, whether any unjust bills produced by Executives, Non-Executives and Union leaders have been identified and reason for Vigilance Department in not responding on the unfair things happening on the tours CPIO vide order dated 26.08.2014, furnished point wise information as available on record. However, not satisfied with the response, the appellant preferred first appeal which was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, only the Respondent was present and submitted a written submission reiterating the facts of the case that information as available with them in response of the appellant's queries had been provided to him in appoint wise manner vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3081 dated 26.08.2014, CPIO had furnished point wise information sought by the Appellant. Copy of the reply furnished by Respondent has been placed on record. The Respondent has also clarified that an appeal dated 06.09.2014 was filed by the appellant on non-receipt of information. However, the information was already furnished on 26.08.2014 and hence no further action was taken on the appeal.
CIC/CC/A/2014/002636-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 01.02.2014, the appellant sought information under 9 points regarding list of tours of Head of Department (HOD), Traffic Manager, VSP, and his queries were as under:
Places visited by HOD of Traffic department of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant on tours, ever since he has taken over the charge, PNR numbers mentioned in the tour bills that were submitted after completion of the tour by the HOD of Traffic department of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant ever since he has taken over the charge, amount withdrawn from the company for the purpose of official tours by the HOD of Traffic department of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant ever since he has taken over the charge, Since how many years, the officers of Permanent Way section of Traffic department have been working in the present places (Yards) without any transfers. Since how many years, the officers of Operation section of Traffic department have been working in the present places (Yards) without any transfers. Since how many years, the Workers of Operation section of Traffic department have been working in the present places (Yards) without any transfers. Since how many years, the Workers of Permanent Way section of Traffic department have been working in the present places (Yards) without any transfers. As per the rules of Central Vigilance Commission, whether transfers for the sensitive places should take place once in every two to three years or not? If so, whether the transfer for the officers of Permanent Way section of Traffic department is taking place? Reason for not transferring the officers of Permanent Way section of Traffic department, if there is a rule of transfer for every two to three years as per Central Vigilance Commission.
CPIO vide letter dated 05.11.2014 furnished point wise information as available on record. The appellant preferred first appeal but the same was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant did not appear for the hearing, but the Respondent was present and submitted that the available information was duly provided to the appellant vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2820 dated 05.11.2014, copy whereof has been placed on record.
CIC/CC/A/2014/002637-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 27.07.2014, the appellant sought information under 6 points regarding Hon'ble Court Orders to remove 46 employees. The queries were as follows:
Whether Hon‟ble High Court of AP issued orders to remove 46 persons who were identified as joined in Steel Plant by producing fake R numbers, reports of the enquiries conducted after issue of the charge sheets along with the copies, whether it is mentioned to terminate them, copies of the orders issued by the Hon‟ble High Court of AP for termination of the 46 R. No. employees. Based on whose orders, they were not terminated from service, even after the orders issued by the Hon‟ble High Court? Who is responsible for not terminating them, actions taken by the Vigilance department of RINL for not implementing the orders issued by Hon‟ble High Court of AP to terminate the 46 persons, whether this issue has come to the notice of Vigilance department, whether CVO, RINL enquired into the malfunctions taken place with regards to the issue of terminating the above employees.
Upon non receipt of response the appellant preferred first appeal and it is alleged that even the appeal was not adjudicated. Thus aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The Respondent present during the hearing stated that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3082 dated 20.02.2015, information had been furnished in a point wise manner in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant. The Respondent added in his submissions that details of the inquiry reports were not furnished relying on provisions of the Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act- 2005. Copy of the reply furnished by the CPIO has been submitted before the Commission. He Respondent further pointed out that an appeal dated 26.06.2015 was received from the appellant on account of non- receipt of information. The said appeal was disposed vide Order dated 07.08.201, by the Appellate Authority, copy whereof has also been filed by the Respondent.
CIC/CC/A/2015/001951-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 12.04.2014, the appellant sought information under 2 points regarding Shri Nagesh Gummalla. The queries were:
Whether Sri Nagesh Gummalla, Emp. No. 102147 of Traffic department has given declaration regarding purchase of land in the property returns in the years 2005-2006 and Whether Sri Nagesh Gummalla, Emp. No. 102147 of Traffic department has given any declaration regarding purchase of land in the month of May 2005-2006?
Upon non receipt of response, the appellant preferred first appeal but the appeal was also not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, the Respondent reiterated his case and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2948 dated 23.04.2014, CPIO had informed the appellant that the information sought is available under fiduciary capacity and are personal information of the employee and thus exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) & 8(1) (j) of RTI Act-2005. Copy of the reply furnished by the CPIO has been submitted by the Respondent. The Respondent further stated that an appeal dated 07.08.2014 was filed by the appellant on non-receipt of information. However, the Respondent emphasised that since the reply had been furnished on 23.04.2014, hence appeal was not tenable, as per them.
CIC/CC/A/2015/001953-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 06.11.2014, the appellant sought information under 9 points regarding report given by CER or IR department of RINL. Upon non receipt of response from the CPIO the appellant preferred first appeal but did not receive any response even to the appeal. Thus aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, the Respondents contended that number of information were sought regarding stoppage of production of BF-1 & BF-2 on 09 different heads in the letter head of an Association without mentioning the name. The CPIO vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3282 dated 06.11.2014, had informed that as per Section 3 of RTI Act, only citizens have right to information. As the RTI application was not submitted by any citizen, the same was rejected. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has been placed on record. The Respondents further narrated that two appeals dated 19.12.2014 & 20.12.2014 had been filed by the appellant alleging non-
receipt of information against RTI application. However, the appeals were baseless and the allegations were wrong since reply had already been furnished vide letter dated 06.11.2014.
CIC/YA/A/2014/002624-YA CIC/CC/A/2014/000855-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 03.04.2014, the appellant sought information under 6 points regarding employees who are working "G" shift in PSY-SSY yard of Traffic Department. The queries of the appellant were as follows:
No. of employees are working "G" shift in PSY-SSY yard of Traffic department, type of works, the employees working in "G" shift under the control of incharge, PSY-SSY yard of traffic department are engaged, type of work each employee is performing, copy of Posting orders, vide which Non executives have been posted in Operation section of Traffic department, in which the types of jobs to be performed by the individuals along with the details of yards have been mentioned, copy of Office Orders issued with respect to allocation of various jobs to the General shift operation employees at PSY-SSY section of Traffic department, whether the postings done, procedure followed in utilization of "G" shift employees by the incharge of PSY-SSY section is as per the knowledge of HOD of Traffic department, whether any note files or orders issued by HOD, Traffic, which shows the General shift operation employees are working in PSY-SSY section with his acceptance along with the copies.
CPIO vide letter dated 23.06.2014, furnished point wise information as available on record. The appellant preferred first appeal but the appeal was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The Respondent submitted during the hearing that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2934 dated 23.06.2014 the CPIO had furnished point wise information in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has also been submitted.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000853-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 04.03.2014, the appellant sought information about 2 points regarding supply of property returns of Traffic Department General Manager and all Dy. Gen Managers since 2000 to 2013, in the following form:
"Property Returns and Income as per Form-16 of GM and all DGMs of Traffic Department since 2000 to 2013."
Upon the CPIO denial vide letter dated 14.05.2014 invoking Sections 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j), the appellant preferred first appeal but the same remained unheard.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
While the appellant remained absent, the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2877 dated 14.05.2014, information had been denied as per the provisions of RTI Act-2005 citing provisions of Section 8(1)(e) & (j) since the information sought was of fiduciary nature. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has been submitted before the Commission by the Respondent.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000854-YA Information sought and background of the case:
The Applicant filed RTI application dated 21.04.2014 seeking information under 6 points, as follows:
The designation of employees appointed as Shift In-charges in the operation section of Traffic Department, VSP ; No. of employees working in General Shift in PSY-SSY Yard of Traffic Department; type of works allotted to each employee working in General shift in PSY-SSY yard of Traffic department; no. of employees and union leaders marked as "Attending the Meeting at T&DC" in the DARs sheet along with the copies of the DARs sheets; no. of officers and union leaders marked their attendance in the DARS Sheet as to attend meeting conducted in M. P. Hall, Ukku Club on 01-04-2014 and reasons for not cancelling the allotment of land to ALFA Junior College and the possibility for cancellation.
Upon non receipt of response from the CPIO, the appellant preferred a first appeal which was not decided. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
While the appellant remained absent, the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2957 dated 09.12.2014 CPIO had furnished point wise information in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant, copy whereof has been submitted before the Commission. The Respondent denied receipt of any First appeal.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000857-YA Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.04.2014 seeking information regarding changing name of Training and Development Centre of Vishakhapatnam Steel plan under 8 points as follows:
Reason for changing the name of Training and Development centre of Visakhapatnam Steel plant along with copies of the note files who raised the proposal to call the name of the "Auditorium" in Training and Development centre of Visakhapatnam Steel plant with another name and when, the decision of change of name of the auditorium in TTI was taken by whom and when was it took place, whether Sri Chintalapudi Venkatramayya, Local MLA Gajuwaka, submitted any letter to the CMD for a particular name for VSP-TTI, if so, a copy of the same, whether any reply sent to Sri Chintalapudi Venkatramayya, Local MLA, Gajuwaka for his letter along with the details of reply and the date when was sent, amount of demurrage paid to the Indian Railways in every month since the year 2000 to March, 2014 by the Traffic department of Steel Plant, Traffic yards (Ex. movement in RMUY, movement in RMPSY etc.) movement wise demurrage paid, whether VSP Management failed in issuing the "Bar Code Identity Cards", after the failure of the same, whether pass photos were asked from the employees or not, the reasons for not issue of "Bar Code Identity Cards" and whether the proposal of issuing "Bar Code Identity Cards" is still under process or withdrawn.
The documents submitted alongwith the appeal reveal that CPIO vide letter dated 22.05.2014 furnished point wise information as available on record. However, not satisfied with the response, the appellant preferred first appeal which was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2956 dated 22.05.2014 CPIO had furnished point wise information in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant. Copy of the said reply furnished by CPIO has also been submitted before the Commission. The Respondent denied receipt of any First appeal.
CIC/CC/A/2014/001479-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 22.02.2014, the appellant sought information under 8 points regarding Loco Accidents list & Locos Collision list during the period from 2000 to 21st February,2014. The pattern of the query of the applicant is as hereunder:
Emp. No. and name of the workers of the Traffic department since 2005, who went outside from the duty either through Plant Plaza gate or BC gate by noting down their names, no. of wagons have damaged since 2000 till date and amount paid to the Indian Railways for the same while the present HOD of Traffic department looking after the Operations of Traffic, amount of expenditure incurred on spare parts for maintenance of the locomotives since 2000 till now, no. of persons became handicapped due to the accidents occurred in Traffic department since 2000 till now, accident wise place of accident and details of loco by which accidents occurred, the year and month in which it was decided to provide the rain coat cost to the employees through salary since the year 2000 till now, the rule through which the jacket used on safety measure in the Permanent Way of Traffic department is decided as Green in colour, whether CISF people are noting the details of workers of various departments going out in between their duty hours through BC gate or Plaza gate, whether the employees, while going out with exit permission from the concerned department has to enter in the register available with CISF,whether CISF persons note down the details in respect of only Traffic department employees as it was mentioned vide letter no. VSP/RTI/2818 dated 15.02.2014, that the permission is granted as per the requirement and with the consent of Controlling Officer,whether any employee can come to the CISF gate from duty, if respective Controlling officer or HOD releases, list of such employees, who noted at CISF gate without taking permission as above since 2007 to February, 2014, whether clarification has been taken from HOD, Traffic department, that the workers from Traffic department are going out from duty with the permission of Controlling Officer, if so, for how many employee numbers letter was sent to HOD, Traffic department, the clarification given by HOD, Traffic Dept. along with a copy, the date from which the attendance for the E. No. 105051, Foremen, Traffic, was marked as „P‟ in the DARs sheets, no. of employees for whom attendance is granted in the similar manner, whether marking of „P‟ is not-accepted only in case of E. No. 105051, Foremen, Traffic, in the recent days, whether I should not seek any information from HOD, Traffic department through RTI application. Whether any employee has to submit written application for taking a Permit Slip to go out from the duty on personal work, to submit RTI application, no. of letters taken from E. No. 105051 by the HOD, Traffic department, who obtained a letter for grant of permission to E. No. 105051 on 25.01.2014, no. of such letters taken from others and reason for taking a letter on only one day.
Upon non receipt of response from the CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal but it was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Only the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2863 dated 16.08.2014 the CPIO had furnished point wise information in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has also been placed on record. Since the PIO reply containing information sought was furnished on 16.08.2014, the First appeal dated 25.03.2014 was not disposed of separately.
CIC/CC/A/2014/001674-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 22.02.2014, the appellant sought multifaceted information under 15 points regarding names of employees list exist, while on duty from Traffic Department, VSP, which are as follows:
Since the year 2000 to 21st February, 2014, loco accidents had occurred in Traffic department. Locos had dashed each other. No. of „side collisions‟ occurred since the year 2000 to 21st February, 2014, no. of loco motives kept in LWRS for repairs of the damages occurred due to accidents and not for scheduled maintenance since the year 2000 to 21st February, 2014, the time taken for the repair of each loco motive, amount of loss incurred on each loco motive due to loco collision. no. of man hours spent, amount of expenditure incurred for the repairs, the list of employee from Traffic department who became physically handicapped due to loco accidents, since January, 1995 to February, 2014,the type of physical disability occurred to each employee working on loco motives and met with accidents, reasons for the above accidents along with Reports, list of employees issued memos or charge sheets from 1999 onwards, responsible for the accidents that has led to property loss, fatal and physical disability along with their names, date, charge sheet no. and details of report.
Upon non receipt of any response from the CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal but the same was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2865 dated 18.08.2014, CPIO had furnished point wise information in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has also been placed on record. The Respondent has denied receipt of any First Appeal.
CIC/CC/A/2014/001687-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 19.03.2014, the appellant sought the following information:
List of yards of Traffic Department where employees bearing E. No. 103508, E. No. 103168, E. No. 103215 were appointed as shift in- charges after getting S-6 Cadre till 25-2-2014, copies of Office Orders issued for appointment of Shift in-charges, if the above employees were placed as shift in-charges, names, cadres & Grades of the employees worked as Shift in-charges of different yards of Traffic department along with the details of yards and time period of working as shift in-charges of respective yards, Whether any rule exists to appoint junior employees as shift in-charges leaving senior employees apart in Traffic department, whether anybody submitted any recommendation letter to not to post senior employees as shift in charges, list of employees posted in „G‟ shift from different unions along with their designations and Order copies through which the employees bearing Emp. No. 103508, 103168, 103215 and 105051 have been posted in „G‟ shift to move here and there in the name of union since the year 2000.
CPIO vide order dated 21.05.2014 furnished point wise information as available on record. The appellant preferred first appeal but the same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2905 dated 21.05.2014, CPIO had furnished point wise available information as sought by the Appellant. In respect of the information which is not available in compiled form, the Appellant was invited to inspect the relevant documents. However, the Appellant has not availed the inspection till date. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has also been placed on record. The First Appeal dated 03.05.2014 was filed complaining non receipt of information from PIO, hence after PIO's reply dated 21.05.2014, the First Appeal was not disposed of separately.
CIC/CC/A/2014/002103-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 26.02.2014, the appellant sought information under 6 points regarding 500 residential contract labour of VSP.
Reasons mentioned in the agreement entered between Management of Steel Plant with the leaders for recruitment of 5 hundred DP contract workers (while going on hunger strike) along with the copy of agreement, no. of DP Contract workers allotted to each department out of the above 5 hundred DP contract worker along with copy of Order, no. of DP Contract workers allotted to Traffic department among the above, list of contract workers out of the above DP Contract workers allotted to Traffic department along with their section and period for which they are working in the sections, list of contract workers allotted to Traffic department along with their section and working in the same section, whether the DP contract workers allotted to Traffic department will be transferred to other section without keeping them at one section.
Upon non receipt of any response from the CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal which was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2870 dated 06.11.2014, CPIO had furnished point wise information in respect of all the queries raised by the Appellant. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has also been placed on record. It has further been clarified by the Respondents that since the First Appeal dated 28.03.2014 was filed upon non receipt of information from PIO, hence after PIO's reply dated 06.11.2014, the First Appeal was not disposed of separately.
CIC/CC/A/2014/002320-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 11.03.2014 the appellant sought the following information:
Whether the dress issued to VSP Steel Plant employees has to be worn while coming to duty or to be worn in the duty, Whether it is required to use safety helmet and safety shoe while on duty, who is responsible, if somebody does not use helmet and shoe, to whom the complaint is to be given, the documents showing the Regulations to be followed by the employees of VSP Steel Plant, according to the ISO certification, whether any specific application/proforma is available in VSP Steel Plant for seeking leave or permission, whether any officer or worker has to submit a written application for leave / permission or is it sufficient to inform orally to the higher official and applying in a leave book, while taking permission, whether any officer or worker is required to submit written application or taking the Permit Slip by intimating the higher official orally, is sufficient.
CPIO vide letter dated 07.08.2014 furnished point wise information as available on record. The appellant preferred first appeal but the same was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2894 dated 07.08.2014, CPIO had furnished point wise information in respect of all the queries raised by the Appellant. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has also been placed on record. It has further been clarified by the Respondents that since the First Appeal dated 07.08.2014 was filed upon non receipt of information from PIO, hence after PIO's reply dated 07.08.2014, the First Appeal was not disposed of separately.
CIC/CC/A/2014/002321-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 31.07.2014, the appellant sought information under 3 points as follows:
Actions taken on the persons who are responsible for the cancellation of the examination, as the examination was cancelled based on proofs available when the rumour came, reasons for cancellation of examination in RINL i.e. due to the rumor any other complaint including evidence, Whether Central Vigilance Commission, staff of CVO office or else CVO has taken any statement or had sought orally or by writing any proofs from the Central Minister who wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of India against one of our Directors in RINL along with the copyand reason for not taking any action by CVC, RINL or CVO, on the complaint given by Central Minister.
CPIO vide letter dated 28.10.2014 furnished point wise information as available on record. The appellant preferred first appeal which was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3091 dated 28.10.2014, CPIO had furnished point wise information in respect of all the queries raised by the Appellant. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has also been placed on record. It has further been clarified by the Respondents that since the First Appeal dated 06.09.2014 was filed upon non receipt of information from PIO, hence after PIO's reply dated 28.10.2014, the First Appeal was not disposed of separately.
CIC/CC/A/2014/002531-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 20.03.2014. the appellant sought the following information regarding an accident/damage which happened in Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant(VSP):
Whose mistake is there in the collision of Railway wagons and Locomotives in RMPSY of Traffic department on 19.03.2014, amount of loss incurred to the Locomotive due to the collision of wagons and locomotive on 19-3-2014, no. of days it was kept in LWRS, amount of loss was incurred due to the damage of the railway wagons, amount to be paid to the Indian Railways due to the damage of railway wagons, demurrage to be paid due to the accident occurred on 19.03.2014 at RMPSY, length of railway track damaged due to the collision of the locomotive and wagons, quantum of man power utilised for its repair, no. of man hours utilized for the work, Whether the accident occurred on 19.03.2014 at RMPSY was due to manual mistake or fault of machinery, who found guilty, if the fault is due to the manual mistake, the action taken against guilty if found.
CPIO vide letter 27.08.2014 furnished point wise information as available on record. The appellant preferred first appeal which was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission. Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2904 dated 27.08.2014, CPIO had furnished the available information. Some of the information sought was based on the assumptions of Appellant and did not fall within the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act-2005. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has also been placed on record. It has further been clarified by the Respondents that since the First Appeal dated 07.08.2014 was filed upon non receipt of information from PIO, hence after PIO's reply dated 27.08.2014, the First Appeal was not disposed of separately.
CIC/CC/A/2014/002632-YA Information sought and background of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2014 seeking the following information regarding construction of Pylon II at Kurmanannapalem:
Details of the head of the construction of Pylon-II, which is placed at Kurmannapalem as a symbol of the expansion of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant along with the copies of permissions obtained for its construction, copies of documents submitted by the contractor regarding the quality and the endurance of the Pylon-II and the order copies issued by VSP- RINL to the contractor regarding the prescribed standards, copies of documents submitted to RINL/VSP by unemployed graduates when Alfa Junior college was given on lease to them, details of responsible person, who has to ensure compliance of all the promises of the lessee during the lease period, when a public property is given on lease by RINL/VSP, actions taken on the lessee in case of violation of the rules and regulations, period of operation/running of "Alfa Junior College" at Ukkunagaram, Subsequently, period of operation of "Sri Chaitanya Junior College" and under whose permission, any enquiry details conducted by anybody from CVO Office and the actions taken on the issue. Reasons for not responding the Office of CVO even though Sri Chaitanya College is running in the place which was taken for Alfa Junior College, copy of Order for not taking any action due to some recommendation.
CPIO vide letter dated 15.09.2014, furnished point wise information as available on record. The appellant preferred first appeal which was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3093 dated 15.09.2014, CPIO had furnished point wise information sought by the Appellant. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has also been placed on record. It has further been clarified by the Respondents that since the First Appeal dated 06.09.2014 was filed upon non receipt of information from the PIO, hence after PIO's reply dated 15.09.2014, the First Appeal was not disposed of separately.
CIC/CC/A/2014/003038-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 28.10.2013, the appellant sought copies of DARs sheets of APR No. 0358, Administration Department, from 01.02.2013 till date.
CPIO vide letter dated 27.11.2013 requested to send additional amount for the information sought. The appellant preferred first appeal but the same was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2667 dated 27.11.2013, CPIO had informed that the copies of the DARs sheets of ARP No. 0358, Administration Department contains around 1,212 pages and informed the applicant to send an amount of Rs 2,424/- (towards the fee for furnishing information containing 1,212 pages at the rate of Rs 2/- per A-4 size page) by the way of cash against proper receipt or in the form of DD/Banker's Cheque/Postal Order in favour of RINL payable at Visakhapatnam towards the fee for providing information in the printed material as per section 7(5) of RTI Act. However, the Appellant has not paid the extra fee. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has also been placed on record. The Respondent has further submitted that an appeal dated 03.12.2013 was received by them which was disposed of vide Order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority, copy whereof has also been duly placed on record.
CIC/CC/A/2014/003061-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 01.02.2014, the appellant sought the following information regarding list of official tours done by the Head of the Department, Traffic Manager, VSP:
In which ARP no. of DARs sheets and to how many employees, the attendance is marked as „P‟ in place of signature, ever since the present HOD of Traffic department of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant has taken over the charge. In which ARP no. of DARs sheets, to how many employees and to whom, the attendance is marked as „P‟ in place of signature ever since the present HOD of Traffic department of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant has taken over the charge. To provide the names, designations of the leaders of the Traffic department who are having „U‟ passes and their respective DARS sheet ARP no.s ever since the present HOD of Traffic department of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant has taken over the charge, names, designations of the leaders of the Traffic department who are having „U‟ passes, their respective DARs sheet ARP no.s, who have given written application for permission to HOD, Traffic department, while going on tours / pilgrimage ever since the present HOD of Traffic department of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant has taken over the charge, names, designations of the leaders of the Traffic department who are not having „U‟ passes, their respective DARs sheet ARP no.s, who have given written application for permission to HOD, Traffic department, while going for pilgrimage ever since the present HOD of Traffic department of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant has taken over the charge, names, designations of the leaders of the Traffic department who are having „U‟ passes and those who are not having „U‟ passes and their respective DARs sheet ARP no.s, who have given written application for permission to HOD or concerned controlling officer, Traffic department, while going on tours / pilgrimage/ native place ever since the present HOD of Traffic department of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant has taken over the charge, out pass / permission slip no. along with the name of those leaders who are having „U‟ passes and those who are not having „U‟ passes of Traffic department and their respective DARs sheet ARP no.s, who have visited on tours / pilgrimage / native place by giving written application for permission ever since the present HOD of Traffic department of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant has taken over the charge, whether all the executives of Traffic department have taken personal permission in the month of January, 2014, to attend two functions at the residence of HOD, Traffic department, copies of their letters. Whether the present HOD of Traffic department has ever inspected that the executives or non- executives who signed at 9° clock in the DARs sheet are staying full time on duty? On any day or even one day, the respected present HOD of Traffic department has inspected whether the executives who signed at 9° clock in the DARs sheet are using the vehicles which are arranged with the company funds, for their personal works. Whether the company vehicles being used for personal work of the executives are going out with the permission of HOD, Traffic department.
CPIO did not reply. The appellant preferred first appeal but the same remained undisposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2821 dated 03.11.2014, CPIO had furnished point wise available information sought by the Appellant. In respect of the information which is not available in compiled form, the Appellant was invited to inspect the relevant documents. However, the Appellant did not avail the opportunity to inspect the file. Copy of the reply furnished by the CPIO has also been placed on record. It has further been clarified by the Respondents that since the First Appeal dated 04.03.2014 was filed upon non receipt of information from the PIO, hence after PIO's reply dated 03.11.2014, the First Appeal was not disposed of separately.
CIC/SS/A/2014/000129-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 28.08.2013, the appellant sought the following information:
The No. of applications, which are applied in the name of Patta Rama Apparao, are not replied and kept pending, no. of days the above applications are pending and the ground for pending, Because of whose lapse these applications are still pending, Have you identified any person who is responsible for not giving the information in the stipulated time under RTI Act-2005, action taken against the person who found responsible for the delay, CPIO did not reply. The appellant preferred first appeal but the same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/2604 dated 30.09.2013, CPIO had furnished point wise information in respect of all queries raised by the Appellant. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has also been placed on record. The Respondent denied receipt of any First Appeal thereafter.
CIC/CC/A/2015/001998-YA (Same as RTI application no.CIC/CC/A/2015/001953) Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 06.11.2014, the appellant sought information regarding the report which was given by CER or IR department of RINL. No. of information was sought with regards attendance of union displaced person members on strike on a particular day in the letter head of an Association without mentioning the name.
Upon non receipt of response from CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal but the same was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3283 dated 06.11.2014 CPIO had replied to the appellant stating that as per section 3 of RTI Act, only citizens have right to information. However, since the RTI application was not submitted by any citizen, the same was rejected. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has been submitted before the Commission. The Respondent has denied receipt of any appeal.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002057 Information sought and background of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.03.2015 seeking the following information regarding Monthly Attendance Edit Sheet of Traffic Operation section:
Copies of Monthly Attendance Edit sheets of Traffic Operation section PSY-SSY Yard, for the months of Jan, 2014 and August, 2014 and Feb, 2014, Monthly Attendance Edit sheets of Traffic dept. Loco & Wagon Repair shop in the months of Jan, 2014, Feb, 2014, August, 2014, Feb, 2015, PSY-SSY yard Foreman‟s of all Shift In-charges for four months Dec, 2014 to March, 2015, shift wise actual attendance of all Shift In- charges and other Foremen of PSY-SSY Yard for the months of August, 2014 to March, 2015 and copies of "Attendance Register" of PSY-SSY Yard for the months of Dec, 2014 to March, 2015.
Upon non receipt of response from CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal which was not disposed of. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3425 dated 04.11.2015 the CPIO had furnished point wise available information. In respect of copies of Attendance Register of the PSY-SSY Yard for the period of December, 2014 to March, 2015, the Respondent informed that the Appellant was invited for inspection of the necessary records as the information sought was voluminous in nature and compilation of the same would disproportionately divert the limited resources of the organisation. However, the Appellant did not avail the opportunity for the inspection till date. Copy of the reply furnished by the CPIO has been placed on record. The Respondent has further stated that an appeal dated 26.06.2015 has been received from the applicant complaining of non-receipt of information. The First Appeal was disposed of vide Order dated 09.11.2015 by the Appellate Authority, copy whereof has been placed on record.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002058 Information sought and background of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2015 seeking the following information:
Whether Sri P V Satyanarayana, Dy. Manager, Traffic department of Steel Plant has taken permission from RINL to act as a Committee Member for I.I.W. for Visakha Chapter, copies of records of Brigade III available in the shift Report Register of PSY Yard, Traffic department from 30.03.2015 to 15.04.2015, no. of days jungle clearance was done at PSY-SSY of Traffic department Since last 2 years, when it was done and expenditure incurred for the same.
The applicant preferred first appeal alleging non receipt of reply from the CPIO. It has further been stated that the FAA was not disposed of and thus being aggrieved, he aggrieved he approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3448 dated 05.09.2015 CPIO had furnished available information in a point wise manner. For the information about no. of days jungle clearance done and expenditure incurred on it, the Appellant was invited to conduct inspection of the necessary records as the information sought was voluminous in nature and compilation of the same would disproportionately divert the limited resources of the organisation. However, the Appellant failed to avail the inspection till date. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has been placed on record. The Respondent further informed about the receipt of an appeal dated 26.06.2015 complaining of non-receipt of information. The said First Appeal was decided by an order dated 04.02.2016, copy whereof has also been placed on record.
CIC/YA/A/2016/000232 Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 17.04.2015, the appellant sought the following information regarding training in IIW, Vizag Chapter along with details of an executive from traffic department working as treasure for IIW:
Whether Visakhapatnam Steel Plant is running Indian Institute of Welding, Vizag Chapter wherein Steel Plant executive employees are Committee members and imparting training to workers of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, whether any appointment order issued to one executive from Traffic department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant who is working as Treasure for IIW, Vizag Chapter as a representative of our company, If the executive of Traffic department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant was not issued any Appointment Order to act as Treasure for IIW, under whose permission the concerned executive is leaving from duty to attend the Committee meetings or at the time of IIW classes, Since which year the executive of Traffic department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant has been acting as Treasurer of IIW, Vizag Chapter, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Whether the executive of Traffic department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, who is acting as Treasurer, was required to take Permit Slip and to record in the DARs sheet to the attend the classes or conferences since 2013 as per the rules and regulations of ISO or not. If so, please, copy of Permit Slips and DARs sheets on which it is recorded.
Aggrieved with the CPIO's reply vide letter dated 25.05.2015 stating that no information was available in this regard, the appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated 11.08.2015 upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3461 dated 25.05.2014, the CPIO has informed the appellant that Visakhapatnam Steel Plant is not running the Indian Institute of Welding, Vizag Chapterand is therefore it is not possible to furnish the information. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has been placed on record. The Respondent has further stated that a First Appeal dated 26.06.2015 filed subsequently by the Appellant was also decided vide Order dated 08.08.2015, copy whereof has been placed on record.
CIC/YA/A/2016/000233 Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 19.04.2015 the appellant sought the following information regarding issue of Permit slips:
Whether the Office Bearers of Worker Unions of our Plant are required to take Permit Slip and to record in the concerned DARs sheet as per rules and regulations of ISO to go out of the plant to the attend the meetings and conferences conducted by the Management or not, whether the Office Bearers of Worker Unions of our Plant are required to take Permit Slip and to record in the concerned DARs sheet as per rules and regulations of ISO to go out of the plant to the attend the meetings and conferences conducted by other institutions, personal auspicious functions or in- auspicious functions or not, copies of Permit Slips and DARs sheets of those Executives and Office Bearers of Worker Unions of different sections of Traffic department who have taken Permit Slip, recorded in the DARs sheets and gone out to attend meetings, if executives or office bearers of Worker Unions of our Plant are required to take Permit Slip and to record in the concerned DARs sheet as per rules and regulations of ISO to go out of the plant to the attend the meetings and conferences conducted by the Management.
CPIO vide letter dated 25.05.2015, furnished point wise information as available on record. The appellant preferred first appeal being dissatisfied with the response. FAA vide order dated 11.08.2015 disposed of appeal by upholding the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant remained absent but the Respondent appeared during the hearing and submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3463 dated 25.04.2015, CPIO had furnished available information sought by the Appellant in a point wise manner, copy whereof has been placed on record. The Respondent has further stated that a First Appeal dated 26.06.2015 was filed by the Appellant alleging non-receipt of information, which has been decided by the FAA vide order dated 08.08.2015, and a copy of the same has been placed on record.
CIC/YA/A/2016/000234 Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 04.04.2015, the appellant sought the following information regarding action taken for low quality material in the Traffic Department (VSP):
Action was taken against whom based on the letter sent by the Vigilance department on the subject of low quality material i.e. black stone (Ballast) in the Traffic department of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, whether the attendance of representatives of the various Worker Unions working in different zones in Traffic department has been recorded in the Shift Reports or in the Daily Attendance Sheets, who had attended the meetings conducted by the Management on 1st January, 2014, 04.03.2014 or 01.04.2014, whether the attendance of representatives of the various Worker Unions working in different zones in Traffic department has been recorded in the Shift Reports or in the Daily Attendance Sheets, who had attended the meetings conducted by the Management on 1st January, 2015, 04.03.2015 or 01.04.2015 (for ex.
DARS Sheet no. 18 - PSY-SSY), copies of the DARS sheets in respect of those representatives for whom the attendance was recorded as mentioned above.
CPIO responded vide letter dated 21.07.2015, furnishing information on points no. 2 & 3 while the appellant was requested to inspect the records in RINL/VSP for remaining information which was voluminous in nature. The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide letter dated 11.08.2015 disposed of appeal by upholding the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Though the appellant was absent during the hearing, the Respondent present submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3438 dated 21.07.2015, the CPIO had invited the Appellant for inspection of the necessary records as the information sought was voluminous in nature and compilation of the same would disproportionately divert the limited resources of the organisation. However, the Appellant did not respond to the request for the inspection. Copy of the reply furnished by the CPIO has been placed on record alongwith the submissions of the Respondent. It has further been informed by the Respondent that an appeal dated 26.06.2015 was filed by the Respondent upon non-receipt of information. The FAA vide Order dated 07.08.2015, the appeal was disposed by the Appellate Authority. Copy of Order issued by 1st Appellate Authority is enclosed at Annexure-47/A. CIC/YA/A/2016/000235 Information sought and background of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.04.2015 seeking the following information:
Shift wise details of employees not attended duty at ARP-18 zone of Central Traffic Control, Traffic department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, as recorded in the Staff report heading of Shift Log Book or Shift Report since 1st to 28th February, 2015, various staff position of the workers at ARP-18 zone as recorded in the Shift Report Since 1st to 28th February.
CPIO vide letter 20.07.2015 responded that information sought is voluminous. The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated 11.08.2015 disposed of appeal by upholding the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant was absent during the hearing, however, the Respondent present submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3436 dated 20.07.2015, CPIO had invited the Appellant for inspection of the necessary records since the information sought was voluminous in nature and compilation of the same would disproportionately divert the limited resources of the organisation. However, the Appellant did not avail the inspection till date. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has been submitted alongwith the written submissions. The Respondent has further informed that an appeal dated 26.06.2015 was filed by the appellant on non-receipt of information, which has been duly disposed of by the FAA vide Order dated 07.08.2015. Copy of Order issued by 1st Appellate Authority has also been placed on record.
CIC/YA/A/2016/000236 Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 13.01.2015, the appellant sought the following information:
No. of Locomotive accidents have occurred between 1st January, 2014 to January, 2015 in Traffic department of VSP, details ofaction taken by the Traffic department on the recommendations of Vigilance department with regards to malfunctions taken place on the issue of Ballast, whether Shift Report Log Book being maintained for recording the duties of employees in General shift of different yards of Traffic Operation division, list of the individuals who sought the details of leaves of the deceased employees of Traffic department who expired between January, 2013 and January, 2015, to submit it to Life Insurance Corporation, total month wise details demurrage paid to the Indian Railways between January, 2013 and January, 2015,places of tour where HOD of Traffic department have gone between January, 2013 and January, 2015 along with tour wise details of expenditure incurred on TA, DA and accommodation.
CPIO vide letter dated 30.07.2015 informed the appellant that information against point no. 4 was exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)j) of the RTI Act and information sought under point no. 5 was voluminous. The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated 11.08.2015 disposed of appeal by upholding the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant was absent during the hearing, however, the Respondent present submitted that vide letter No. VSP/RTI/3364 dated 30.07.2015, CPIO had furnished point wise available information sought by the Appellant. In respect of the information which is not available in compiled form, the Appellant was invited to inspect the relevant documents. However, the Appellant did not avail inspection till date. Copy of the reply furnished by CPIO has been submitted alongwith the written submission by the Respondent. It has also been informed that an appeal dated 26.06.2015 was filed by the appellant on non-receipt of information, which was duly disposed of vide the FAA's order dated 07.08.2015, copy whereof has also been placed on record.
DECISION:
1. After perusal of the queries in all these forty five RTI applications and the detailed submissions by the Respondent corresponding to each of them, it is evident that the queries of the appellant in all of the RTI applications and corresponding appeals deal with similar subject matter in as much as they are repetitive and make for labored reading. The stream of incessant queries of the appellant, bring forth neither any new fact nor any fresh thought on the subject matter. It is further pertinent to note that none of the queries relate to him directly nor has he anywhere established any case of larger public interest. In fact, in all of the cases where he had been invited for inspection of the records, no endeavour has been made by the appellant to obtain the information thereby indicating his disinterest in seeking information per se.
2. It is clear therefore, that the main objective of the appellant is to overawe the Public Authority seeking humungous amount of information. In the process, he has sought innumerable pieces of information relating to the same issue. This relentless exercise has resulted in more than 45 appeals filed by the appellant against the same public authority. Interestingly, the Appellant was not even present to address his arguments before the Commission. Moreover despite the opportunity given to him both by the CPIO and the FAA for inspecting the documents, he chose to never utilise the same. His conduct is therefore indicative of his lack of interest in any actual information or pursuit of transparency and instead it appears to be a simple ploy to disrupt normal functioning of the Respondent by flooding them with inane and irrelevant queries. There is already a deluge of information being sought by disgruntled employees/ex-
employees of various organisations, who are choking the system, causing colossal waste of judicial time and preventing the hearing of genuine cases. To add to it, cases like the one at hand further jeopardise the process of meting out justice to the deserving and genuine cases.
3. The conduct of the appellant in multiplying his similar queries into manifold appeals indicates he is not only a perpetual litigant but also a vexatious and a mischievous one who is seeking to submerge the normal functioning of the Respondent authority under a deluge of repetitive and irrelevant paperwork. The Commission finds this as gross abuse of the RTI Act, and the law of the land is very clear on this aspect.
4. This Commission has in its decision no. CIC/YA/A/2014/001071, 001123,001210 while disposing of a batch of fifteen matters of one Mr. M Danasegar dated 30.06.2015 has 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. ..."
4. The Commission in its aforesaid decision placed reliance on the following Apex Court decision regarding vexatious and frivolous petitions. The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. 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. ...."
5. This Bench while deciding another similar case being a batch of appeals no. CIC/DS/A/2013/001227-YA, CIC/DS/A/2013/001722-YA, CIC/YA/A/2014/001968, CIC/YA/A/2014/002073, CIC/YA/A/2014/ 002073, titled Sandeep Dabas vs. NDMC had held as follows:
"....The Commission, further, finds that the documents produced before the Commission are sufficient to disclose the real intentions of the appellant in seeking the information. While it is the primary duty of the Commission to ensure disclosure of information to an information seeker, it is equally important to protect the interest of officials against whom a huge volume of unnecessary information is sought for by the appellant, intending to harass the officers of the respondent authority. Right to Information is a fundamental right to citizens, however, it cannot be used indiscriminately to fulfil the demands of one individual. Such a case of disclosure of information to an information seeker who is seeking information on persons who have complained against him, in order to seek revenge is nothing but spearheading his private interest.
The preamble of the Right to Information Act mentions that disclosure of information, in actual practice, cannot be made where it is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operation of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. .......................... A plethora of applications have been generated, not by public interest, but emanate from a sadistic streak to harass certain officials of the respondent authority. The appellant‟s persistent and harassing demands for information have resulted in clear diversion of resources in answering them by the administration of the Education Dept., Rohini Zone. The RTI Act cannot become a tool in the hands of such disgruntled elements....."
6. The Apex Court had discussed the issue in great details in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11) J. Pasayat and held as follows:
".........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 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..........."
7. Subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest. ...."
8. The Delhi High Court faced with a similar 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. ...................."
9. The Apex Court in two vital decisions has categorically cautioned thus:
"...The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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 (The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336).
10. In the other celebrated judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. , the Apex Court held as follows:
"...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..."
11. In view of the settled position of law and the facts of these appeals at hand, it is noted that the public authority has already spent inordinately large number of man hours in furnishing the information to the appellant, which in the process would have already impinged on the resources of the organization. The Commission, therefore, is constrained to warn the appellant to be more careful in future and refrain from this relentless litigation over flimsy issues which have no relevance whatsoever to either public good or any cause for transparency. He has chosen not to appear before the Commission to even canvass his case. That in itself would have been sufficient cause to dismiss these appeals. However, in the interest of justice, the Commission has dealt with each of his appeal and found that information as available has already been furnished to him. For the voluminous information, the Respondent had provided opportunity to the appellant to inspect the files, however, the opportunity was not availed by him. Thus apart from filing the RTI applications and appeals he has shown no interest or regard for the information at all. There is no merit in these appeals and hence the same are dismissed.
The Commission makes it clear that in the event this tirade of frivolous, vexatious and wasteful round of litigation is seen to resurface the Commission will be compelled to dismiss his applications without hearing, on the grounds of being vexatious and repetitive and with an ulterior motive.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) 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.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-