Central Information Commission
Mohit Kumar Gupta vs Maulana Azad Institute Of Dental ... on 30 September, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
/ Appeal No.
ि तीय अपील सं या CIC/MAIDS/A/2018/627221
िशकायत सं या /Complaint No. CIC/MAIDS/C/2018/627222
Shri Mohit Kumar Gupta अपीलकता/ Appellant/
िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO(MAIDS) ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences
Mamc Complex, B S Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002
Date of Hearing : 29.09.2020
Date of Decision : 30.09.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
Case No. RTI dated CPIO reply First appeal FAO Second Appeal
/Complaint
627221 25.12.2017 16.01.2018 12.02.2018 - 29.07.2018
627222 25.12.2017 16.01.2018 12.02.2018 - 29.07.2018
Since a Second Appeal and a Complaint has been filed by the same Applicant, the
above mentioned cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/MAIDS/A/2018/627221 CIC/MAIDS/C/2018/627222 [Identical RTI applications filed separately by Appellant/ Complainant vide sl.
No.178893 and 178894] The Appellant/ Complainant filed an RTI application on 25.12.2017 seeking information on following 09 points:-
1. Provide specific amount of budgetary funds in Indian Rupees, allocated to Maulana Azad Dental Hospital for and in each year(s) 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. Provide complete details for each year separately.
2. Provide specific amount of budgetary funds in Indian Rupees, allocated to each Hospital under GNCTD for and in each year(s) 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. Provide complete details for each year separately.Page 1 of 5
3. Provide the Heads & Amount of funds allocated in budget dealing with dental treatment for and in the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. Provide complete details for each year and all hospitals separately.
etc. The PIO(MAIDS) vide letter dated 16.01.2018 furnished information on points 7-9 of the RTI application to the Appellant/ Complainant. However, on points 1 to 6 it was stated that the information sought on these point is voluminous and may be scattered amongst several files. Hence, it cannot be provided in accordance with para 37 of Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter CBSE Vs Aditya Bandopadhayay (Civil Appeal 6454/2011).
Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant/ Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.02.2018 which was not adjudicated.
Feeling aggrieved by denial of information, Appellant/ Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from PIO, MAIDS vide letter dated 19.09.2020 wherein it was inter alia stated that the First Appeal was filed by the Appellant/ Complainant before the FAA, Department of Health and Family Welfare (GNCTD) and the FAA at MAIDS did not get the First Appeal. Queries 2 to 4 and 6 to 9 are generic in nature concerning all hospitals of GNCTD. DoP&T circular dated 24.09.2010 does not allow transfer of application u/s 6 (3) to more than 1 public authority and as such the Appellant/ Complainant should have filed RTI applications with each hospital separately. Information on points 1 to 4 existed with Department of Health and Family Welfare (GNCTD). However sending the RTI application back would have been an unnecessary burden on resources of all concerned public authorities. The Appellant/ Complainant on points 1 to 6, sought information relating to 8 financial years which would disproportionately divert the resources of the MAIDS. In this context, a reference was made to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, Civil Appeal No 6454/2011 dated 09.08.2011. The Respondent also made a reference to para 44 of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CPIO, Supreme Court vs Subhash Chandra Agrawal Civil Appeal No 2683, 10044 and 10045 of 2010 dated 13.11.2019.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He requested the instant matter be remanded to the FAA, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences since the first appeal filed by him was not adjudicated, till date. While admitting that multiple queries pertaining to several Page 2 of 5 hospitals were raised by him in the RTI application, the Appellant/ Complainant requested that the information sought in query no 02 relating to budgetary funds allocated to each hospital for the years 2010-2017 could be provided at this stage.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Sunil Gupta, Dealing Officer and Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Consultant, GNCTD through audio conference. The Respondent referred to the RTI application and stated that several queries pertaining to the D/o Health, GNCTD and its constituent hospitals are raised by the Appellant/ Complainant vide a single application which results in multiple transfers and correspondence and causes delay in disclosure of information. In this context, the Respondent also made a reference to the OM/ Circular issued by the DoP&T dated 24.09.2010 which does not allow transfer of an RTI application to more than one public authority hence the Appellant/ Complainant should have filed separate RTI applications with each hospital. The Respondent also stated that the First Appeal which was filed online was not received by them hence could not decided. Explaining that certain queries were roving in nature, the Respondent referred to point no 7 and stated that no specific information could be provided on the said point as the cost of braces treatment varied on a case to case basis since the cost of material varied as per the requirement of each patient.
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission at the outset observed that multiple queries relating to several hospitals were raised by the Appellant/ Complainant vide a single RTI application which can cause disproportionate diversion of resources of the Public Authority. A point wise response was provided by the Maulana Azad Dental College subsequent to transfer of application by the D/o Health, GNCTD hence no malafide intent could be attributed to the conduct of the Respondent. Although the document pertaining to transfer of application is not on record, however, after persuing the queries raised in the application it can safely be concluded that the same are unspecific and roving in nature seeking "complete" details of budgetary funds allocated to Maulana Azad Dental Hospital and "each" hospital under GNCTD for 8 years i.e. 2010 to 2017; "complete" details spent or incurred by the Maulana Azad Dental Hospital for the aforementioned years for Single Tooth Implants and Braces Treatment, etc. Instead of seeking "complete" information for "each" hospital, the Appellant/ Complainant ought to have resorted to filing separate RTI applications with different hospitals raising pointed queries. In this context, the Commission refers to the following observations in the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"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 Page 3 of 5 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 public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. 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 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 of limited fiscal resources"
A reference can also be made to the following observations made by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the matter of State Information Commission vs. Tushar Dhananjay Mandlekar, LPA No. 276/ 2012 in Writ Petition No. 3818/2010 (D) dated 30.07.2012:
"It is apparent from a reading of what is stated above that instead of seeking information on some specific issues, the respondent sought general information on scores of matters. The application is vague and the application does not make it clear to the Information Officer as to what information is actually sought by the respondent from the Officer. It was literally impossible for the appellants, as pointed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, to supply the entire information sought by the respondent to the respondent within a period of 30 days. The documents ran into 3419 pages. We had asked the respondent while hearing of this letters patent appeal as to what action did the respondent take in pursuance of the information sought by the respondent after the information was supplied and it was replied by the respondent appearing in person that nothing was done on the basis of the information supplied by the appellants as there was some delay in supplying the information. It is really surprising that thousands of documents are being sought by the respondent from the authorities and none of the documents is admittedly brought into use. We are clearly of the view in the aforesaid backdrop that the application was filed with a mala fide intention and with a view to abuse the process of law.Page 4 of 5
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal/ Complaint stand disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5