Central Information Commission
Ram Kumar Agrawal vs Central Vigilance Commission on 2 August, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CVCOMI/A/2023/606900
Ram Kumar Agrawal ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO,
Central Vigilance Commission
RTI Cell, Satarkta Bhawan, GPO Complex
INA Colony, Block-A, New Delhi-110023 ितवादीगण /Respondent
.... ितवादीगण
Date of Hearing : 01/08/2023
Date of Decision : 01/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09/11/2022
CPIO replied on : 15/12/2022
First appeal filed on : 20/12/2022
First Appellate Authority order : NIL
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.11.2022 seeking the following information:-
" With due regards, this is to intimate that I had attended the Venue Room No. 202 of Hon. Information Commissioner Ms. Satoj Punhani on 02.11.2022 in respect of file No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2021/637729 (completely wrong, illegal, misleading, false, 1 malafide & contra,/ to law advice of CVC Issued vide No. vide OM No. 013/DPT/009/228934 dated 11.10.2013) and after the proceedings and as per the direction of the Hon. IC, the representative of the CVC suppled copy of the Action History of RTI Request No. CVCOM/R/E/21/00205 (Cony enclosed for ready reference) and it is certainty not the reply of my RTI Application dated 18.09.2021 but Action History prepared by the CVC for its internal use. I confirm that till date I have not received any reply of my RTI request CVCOM/R/E/21/0020S dated 18.04.2021 from the CPIO of CVC. W.r.t the said Action History supplied to me on
02.11.2022, the following information may please be provided:
1. Please intimate as to whom the Action History has been addressed to and whether is it the reply of my RTI request CVCOM/R/E/21/00205 dated 18.04.2021.
2. Please Intimate whether It is an internal processing/consumption record of the RT1 Application within CVC and whether It was ever dispatched by the CPIO of the CVC.
3. Please intimate as to what was the mode of dispatch as it does not contain any dispatch number and the date.
4. Please Intimate as to whether the Action History has been signed with date by the CPIO and whether it is on the proper Letter Head of the CVC.
5. Please intimate as to through which angle, it appears to be an official RTI reply communication by the CVC to the RTI Applicant
6. Please intimate as to why the Action History was not supplied to me during the proceedings on 02.11.2022 but after the proceedings.
7. Please Intimate whether the CVC has intentionally misguided not only the Hon. Information Commissioner but also the RTI Applicant by supplying the Action History in place of supplying the proper reply of the RTI application on the letter head of the CVC containing dispatch number with date, signature of the CPIO, mode of dispatch etc.
8. Please intimate whether the CVC is sensible enough considering Its prestige, reputation while giving reply to my RTI Application. I have made the payment of requisite fee online. It is requested to provide the aforesaid Information as provided under section 6 of the RTI Ad, 2005."2
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 15.12.2022 stating as under:-
" Please refer to your online RTI application dated 09.11.2022 has been received in the Commission on the above subject.
2. Paras 1.7, Information sought does not cover under Section 2(f) of RTI Act -2005"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.12.2022. FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"Further, the reply of the CPIO is very absurd and unbelievable as the representative of the CVC had supplied the copy of the Action History as per the order of the Hon. Information Commissioner Smt. Saroj Punhani on 02.11.2022 after the proceedings and the representative of the CVC was very sure that the Action History was in fact, not the reply of my RTI application dated 18.04.2021 but only a copy of the Action History which was prepared in CVC for its in-house internal use. Further, what made the CPIO of the CVC to provide a copy of the Action History after the proceedings on 02.11.2022 as in para No. 3 of the notice of Hearing for Appeal/complaint in File No.CIC/CVCOM/A/2021/637729 dated 11.10.2022, it was clearly mentioned that "All the Parties.........date of hearing." I am enclosing a copy of the same (notice of Hearing for Appeal/complaint) for ready reference which is self- explanatory. There was no reason for the CPIO of the CVC not to follow such instruction of the Hon. CIC in supplying the said so called reply well in advance as it was well aware that no reply was ever sent to me as it was not a reply of the RTI Application but only an Action History which was prepared in CVC for its internal use. It is a very serious matter to which the CVC should take note of it as the CPIO of the CVC has intentionally misguided not only the Hon. IC but also the RTI Applicant by supplying the Action History in place of supplying the proper reply of the RTI Application as it is not on the letter head of the CVC containing dispatch number with date, non- availability of the signature of the CPIO on the Action History, mode of dispatch, to whom it was sent etc. The Action History can never be the reply of my RTI Application as nowhere it has been mentioned as to whom and at which address it was dispatched. The address of the RTI Applicant is not available on the Action History and as such there was no reason for the CPIO of the CVC to send it to the RTI Applicant and it is a false claim of the CPIO of the CVC which is highly objectionable."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Apul Jaiswal, Director & CPIO present through audio conference.3
The Appellant argued on the lines of the grounds of second appeal mentioned as above.
The CPIO reiterated the reply that is already on record.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record is at a loss to appreciate the grounds of the Second Appeal. The Appellant appears to have filed the instant RTI Application to vindicate his angst against the action of the Respondent with respect to an earlier RTI Application and corresponding appeal decided by this bench. The Appellant has merely sought to interrogate the CPIO under the garb of seeking for information and as noted from the archives of the decision passed by the Commission with respect to various appeals of the Appellant, he has been advised on multiple occasions about the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Yet, he appears to be not inclined to pay attention to the same and is in the habit of filing mundane RTI Applications and seeking to mortify the CPIOs.
The Appellant not seeking for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act yet being hysterical in his Second Appeal reminds this bench about the following observations made by the Apex Court in the above discussed judgment of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. against impractical demands for information under the RTI Act:
'....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public 4 authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.' Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 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 the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...xxx '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 beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.' Similarly, the Preamble of the RTI Act also acknowledges 'efficient operations of the Governments', 'optimum use of limited fiscal resources' as a valid consideration while exercising ones right to information.5
Having observed as above, the Commission is not inclined to adjudge the action/alleged inaction of the Respondent in the instant matter and summarily rejects the Appeal.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6