Central Information Commission
A S Gill vs Indian Grassland And Fodder Research ... on 28 July, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: (As per annexure)
In the matter of:
A S Gill
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
ICAR - Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute (IGFRI)
Near Pahuj Dam, Gwalior Road, Jhansi -284003
...Respondent
Date of hearing : 24.07.2020
Date of decision : 24.07.2020
File Nos. RTI application CPIO First Appeal FAA's Second
filed on replied on filed on Order on Appeal filed
on
108963 27/09/2018 26/10/2018 28/10/2018 28/11/2018 20/02/2019
108964 09/10/2018 05/11/2018 08/11/2018 27/11/2018 20/02/2019
108965 14/10/2018 12/11/2018 14/11/2018 27/11/2018 20/02/2019
109816 04/10/2018 05/11/2018 09/11/2018 06/12/2018 22/02/2019
114243 28/12/2018 25/01/2019 29/01/2019 Not on 25/03/2019
record
117560 13/12/2018 Not on record 28/01/2019 Not on 12/04/2019
record
135116 12/12/2018 Not on record 30/03/2019 18/04/2019 16/07/2019
135042 23/12/2018 12/03/2019 11/02/2019 20/04/2019 17/07/2019
135041 14/03/2019 15/04/2019 20/04/2019 Not on 17/07/2019
record
135466 11/04/2019 09/05/2019 11/05/2019 25/06/2019 18/07/2019
135465 20/04/2019 13/05/2019 16/05/2019 25/06/2019 18/07/2019
136438 03/03/2019 25/03/2019 27/03/2019 Not on 20/07/2019
record
1
136612 09/03/2019 06/04/2019 21/04/2019 Not on 20/07/2019
record
142719 24/05/2019 24/06/2019 26/06/2019 Not on 24/08/2019
record
142720 23/05/2019 24/06/2019 27/06/2019 Not on 24/08/2019
record
159786 01/07/2019 Not on record 14/08/2019 Not on 26/11/2019
record
163230 05/06/2019 26/06/2019 31/07/2019 26/08/2019 23/11/2019
The following were present:
Appellant: Present
Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AAO (Establishment) and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
1.- File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/108963 The Appellant has sought the following information regarding un-authorized payment of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs. 6,23,946/- (Rs 13,23,946) to the Labour contractor at ICAR-Indian Grassland & Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi (UP) as per Shri Girish Bhatt, Under Secretary (Vig), ICAR, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, letter FNo.34/2015-Vig.II of 20/08/2015, addressed to Dr. P.K. Ghosh, Director, IGFRI, Jhansi.
1. The cheque signatories (Namely Dr. A.K. Mishra, Dr. Sultan Singh, Dr J.P. Singh and Shri Rakesh Bhardwaj(Ex.SAO) names are not figuring in the proceedings. Make the confusion clear.
2. Name of the head of the institution (IGFRI) and its role may be spelt out as it is missing in the proceedings.
3. Name of the FAO at IGFRI, Jhansi and its role may be spelt out as it is missing in the proceedings.
4. Describe the roles as played by Shri Arvind Kumar, as he is the sole member charge-sheeted.
2.-File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/108964 The appellant has sought the following information regarding KW Conferences, Gurgaon.
1. Provide full details of KW Conferences, Gurgaon (What is it & the Prime leader name and address) 2
2. Provide the full procedure in selecting KW Conferences, Gurgaon for IGC.
3. What duties (T&C) were assigned to KW Conferences, Gurgaon for IGC
4. And other related information.
3.-File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/108965 The appellant has sought the following information with reference to IGFRI, Jhansi Office Order F.No.05(03) FFC/2018/ICAR/IGFRI dated 27/09/2018:
1. Provide the certified copy of the letter dated 25/09/2018 of US(CS), ICAR, New Delhi.
2. Provide the certified copy of the letter of Shri Vishambhar Prasad Nishad, Hon'ble Member of Parliament, New Delhi-110001.
3. Provide the copy of IGFRI, Jhansi, Office Order F.No.05(03) FFC/2018ICAR/IGFRI dated 27/09/2018.
4.-File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/109816 The appellant has sought the following information with regard to the rejection of his medical claims submitted in 2013-14, for a total amount of Rs.4183/- by IGFRI:
1. Why IGFRI took 8 years to issue the IGFRI Circular F.No. 05/Medical/Retired/B&C/2014 dated 22/09/2014 to bring the council decision (Council letter FNo. 03/03/2002-Per.IV of dated 08/09/2006) in the kind notice of IGFRI, Jhansi retired employees.
2. Provide the name of the official and its full designation who had issued the IGFRI Circular F No. 05/Medical/Retired/B&C/2014 dated 22/09/2014
3. What was the prime reason to reject 07 medical claims of Dr. Gill which were submitted before the issue of IGFRI Circular F No. 05/Medical/Retired/B&C/2014 of dated 22/09/2014.
5.-File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/114243 The appellant has sought the following information with regard to publication of book book titled "Approaches towards Fodder Security in India" by Dr. P.K. Ghosh, S.K.Mahanta, J.B. Singh, D. Vijay, R.V. Kumar, V.K. Yadav and Sunil Kumar:
1. All the authors of the book are from lGFRl, Jhansi and therefore, in the book raw data of the institute must have been used. Whether the 3 institute data can be used for private publication (Can it be considered under Copy right violation).
2. For the publication of the said book was it not necessary to take approval of the council.
3. If, approval of the council was taken, provide a copy of the same.
4. And other related information.
6.-File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/117560 The appellant has sought the following information with reference to IGFRI Audit letter FNo. CPIO/Audit dated 29/11/2018 pertaining to 16 T.A. Bills of PME team for their visit to Dharward. After the perusal of the 16 T.A. bills except of Dr. P.K. Ghosh, Director, IGFRI, Jhansi, which contained the original tour programme and revised tour programme, no other TA bills contained the said details.
1. Provide original Tour programme as approved for the visit to Dharward.
2. Provide original revised tour programme as approved for the visit to Dharward.
3. All the PME team members except Dr. Ghosh have shown their return journey from VSG Railway station//Madgaon. How, the journey from Dhanward to VSG/Madgaon Railway station was performed may be provided including the mode of transport (train/Road).
7.-File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/135116 The appellant has sought the following information regarding the visit of IGFRI PME team to RRS Dharward.
1. In the RRS, Dhanward premises, the birthday celebration of Dr. N. Das, PS, IGFRl was an official function or a private function.
2. Provide the approval of the competent authority for organizing the function at the premises of RRS Dhanward.
3. In what capacity Dr. Sunil Tewari, HD (CP) was present at RRS, Dharward.
4. And other related information.
8.- File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/135042 The appellant has sought the information with reference to the organizing the IGC 2015. Dr. P.K. Ghosh, Director, IGFRI; President, RMSI & Organizing Chairman, IGC 2015 and the official of M/S KW, Gurgaon (All were of Bengali 4 cast??) had opened 03 Bank Accounts for FOREIGN MONEY for Foreign delegates. In this regard provide all the details of the said Accounts (Name of the Bank, Account number, names of the account holder) and full detail of foreign money which had been deposited, the approval of RBI for opening the account and the finally the present status of three accounts.
9.-File no. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/135041 The appellant has sought the following information with reference to IGFRI Audit letter FNo. CPIO/Audit dated 29/11/2018 pertaining to 16 T.A. Bills of PME team for their visit to Dharward. After the perusal of the 16 T.A. bills except of Dr. P.K. Ghosh, Director, IGFRI, Jhansi, which contained the original tour programme and revised tour programme, no other TA bills contained the said details.
1. Provide original Tour programme as approved for the visit to Dharward.
2. Provide original revised tour programme as approved for the visit to Dharward.
3. All the PME team members except Dr. Ghosh have shown their return journey from VSG Railway station//Madgaon. How, the journey from Dhanward to VSG/Madgaon Railway station was performed may be provided including the mode of transport (train/Road).
10.- File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/135466 During the QRT team visit to IGFRI, Jhansi in 2014, an advance of approximately Rs.28 lakhs was given to Dr. Sunil Kumar, Ex. QRT member secretary for meeting the expenses in connection with the visit of the QRT Team. Appellant has sought copies of the receipts for the spending of the said amount of Rs.28 lakhs.
11.-File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/135465 The Appellant has sought the information pertaining to visit of PME members to RRS Dharward. As per the tour programme approved, members return journey was approved from Dharward to Jhansi. However, in the TA bill submitted by the members, the journey has been shown as from VSG/Madgaon Railway Station to Jhansi Railway Station. Appellant has stated that journey from Dharward to VSG/Madagaon was performed by hiring a bus.
In this context, the appellant has sought the following information:
5- Provide the certified information that the hired bus was used to transport all the PME members from Dharward to Goa. How many kilometres were covered in this process and if any amount was recovered from the PME members or not.
12.-File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/136438 The appellant has sought the information regarding medical claims of Smt. Ratvinder Gill W/o the appellant. The four medical claims amounting to Rs.
14,101.00 were submitted for payment. However, an amount of Rs. 6891.00 was paid against the said bills.
-Provide certified information that deduction of Rs.7201 made from the bills was correct and there was not chance for any kind of rectification / payment.
13.- File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/136612 The appellant has sought the following information with regard to advances given to Dr. Sunil Kumar, Member Secretary, QRT, IGFRI:
1. In all 14 advances were given to Dr. Sunil Kumar amounting to Rs.28,36,000.00. Give dates on which said advances were disbursed and mode of payment, viz. in the form of cash or through cheque.
2. lf the advances were given through cheque, mention the account number in which the same was credited.
3. After meeting the expenditure, give details of amount refunded out of advances. Give full details of refund, viz. in cash or through cheque.
4. And other related information.
14.- File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/142719 The appellant has sought the information with regard to the status of payment of medical bills submitted by the appellant in the year 2019, as per following details:
S.No Date of letter Medical bill no Claim
Amount(Rs)
56 02/01/2019 144 2738
145 3398
57 08/01/2019 146 2811
147 9521
148 3836
58 11/01/2019 149 6400
6
59 07/02/2019 150 15697
151 3013
152 5695
60 12/03/2019 153 3387
154 5214
61 16/05/2019 156 4393
157 4553
158 3872
159 4450
15.-File No: CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/142720
The appellant has made a reference to letter FNo.DDO/MR/RTI/2019-20 of dated 11/04/19. He has sought the details with regard to reimbursement of 143 medical bills submitted by him. Provide the documentary proof which bills out of 143 bills have been paid to him supported with the information of date of payment and the amount paid.
16.- File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/159786 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Action taken report on Shri A.K. Meena, Under Secretary (CS), lCAR, letter FNo.CS/1/2/2018-lA.IV dated 22/02/19, addressed to the Director, IGFRI, Jhansi and copy to him.
2. lf no action has been taken, provide the reasons.
17.- File No. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/163230 The appellant has made a reference to the IGFRI, Jhansi Office Order FNo. PF 16/ASG/97-Adm (Pension Case) dated 10/11/2017. Provide the full details of the other dues amounting to Rs. 19,779/- as deducted from his gratuity in 2005 (14 years ago).
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is hard of hearing and his written submissions dated 10.07.2020 and 11.07.2020 may be taken into consideration to decide these 17 cases. On a query by the Commission he submitted that he had nothing more to say and he has sent written submissions for 65 appeal cases out of the 66 cases fixed today for hearing.7
The Commission had gone through his submissions and finds that except making serious allegations against the employees of the IGFRI, there was no substantive material to establish his second appeals. The CPIO submitted during the hearing that all his RTI applications were replied to. Moreover, the nature of his applications is repetitive and unending in nature.
In case no. 108963 the CPIO reiterated the earlier reply and submitted that the information sought is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. In case no. 108964 the appellant in his second appeal contested the replies in all the points of the RTI application.
In case no. 108965 Shri Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Administrative Officer vide his written submissions dated 14.07.2020 requested the appellant to mention the date of the letter of Shri Vishambhar Prasad Nishad, as they are unable to find the same.
In case no. 109816 it appears from the second appeal that the appellant is aggrieved as his 7 medical claims were rejected. According to him there is several lakhs of medical bill scam in the organisation. In case no. 114243 the appellant in his appeal alleged that to the best of his knowledge Dr. Ghosh being the head of the organisation cheated the research scientist and took their research work in the publication of the book. In case no. 117560 the appellant in his appeal submitted that he wanted the information from Dharwad to Goa, to his best knowledge all the 15 members availed Government Transport so that they had not to pay extra for their family members.
In case no. 135116 the appellant in his appeal submitted that no reply was received from the CPIO and the FAA's order is vague. The CPIO submitted that in respect of points no. 1 to 3 no information is available and in respect of point no. 4 a reply was given on 15.10.2019. In case no. 135042 the appellant in his appeal alleged that Dr P.K Ghosh had opened 3 bank accounts. The respondent informed that a reply on points 1-3 was given on 12.03.2019 and for points 4-6, the reply was given on 06.05.2019 In case no. 135041 the appellant alleged that the TA bills of all the 15 members were cleared by the IGFRI Audit which is illegal. The CPIO submitted that a point-wise reply was already given. In case no. 135466 the appellant submitted that he wants the certified receipts of Rs 28 lakhs. The CPIO submitted that all available information was already given.8
In case no. 135465 the appellant submitted that he wants to know whether the hired vehicle was used to transport the PME members with their family members Dharwad to Goa or within the Goa city. The CPIO submitted that vehicle movement details was already given.
In case no. 136438 the appellant submitted that all the 4 essential certificates were incomplete.
In case no. 136612 the appellant alleged that payment of Rs 28 lakhs to Dr Sunil Tiwari was illegal.
In case no. 142719 the appellant submitted in his appeal that his only demand is payment of 15 medical bills.
In case no. 142720 the appellant in his appeal submitted that he wants the status report of his 143 medical bills submitted by him from time to time. In case no. 159786 the appellant is aggrieved as no action was taken on his letter dated 22.02.2019.
In case no. 163230 the appellant wanted full amount deducted with details. The CPIO submitted that Rs 19,779 was deducted from the appellant's gratuity in the year 2005 and this was duly informed to the applicant.
Observations:
It is important to note here that the appellant retired from service in the year 2005 and since 15 years he is pursuing his grievance of deduction of amount from his gratuity, non payment of his medical claims etc. The Commission fails to understand that why the appellant is not approaching the proper forum or Court of law to redress his grievance and instead is exhausting the resources of the Commission and the public authority.
Moreover, clearly there is no public interest involved in all his appeals and he is trying to point out every single issue of the public authority only to pressurise them to give him monetary relief. There is enough material to assume that the appellant is filing these appeals with ulterior motive. He retired in 2005 and he is asking for information regarding the deductions in 2019, i.e. after 15 years which itself shows that his litigation is unending in nature. The Commission is out of resources now to examine his each and every RTI application and compare it with the previous cases to check whether same issues were already discussed or not.
The appellant is therefore advised to understand that he cannot get back his deducted amount by filing these repeated/monetary dispute applications. He 9 also should understand that the RTI Act is not the proper law to get the medical claims approved.
At the outset, it is important to mention that the current situation arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic, the continuous lockdowns and the closure for some period of all the organizations has amounted into a backlog of a large number of Appeals and Complaints. Under such circumstances, there is a dire need to identify such cases that can be disposed off in a cumulative manner in order to expedite the necessary disposal of cases of other information seekers, distinguishing them from the repetitive applicants who in the garb of seeking information are using the RTI Act as a tool to harass some public authorities.
In view of the above, the instant 17 cases were heard together and have been clubbed for decision to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is pertinent to mention here that in an order passed in File No. CIC/RLCAU/A/2018/169843 on 27.04.2020 of the same appellant, the following observation was made by the present bench:
"The appellant is also advised to avoid filing RTI applications by modifying the same queries and causing unnecessary pressure on the respondent authority to reply."
In the cases where the disclosure of information is depending highly upon substantial public interest, it has to be clearly established by the appellant. Conjecture and suspicion cannot take the place of material proof. The present appeals also fails to sustain as the Commission is not satisfied that there is any larger public interest involved. However, the blunt allegations by the appellant, point towards definite tendency unerringly towards the misuse of the RTI Act by the appellant. All the 66 appeals and the submissions, taken cumulatively, and the previous decided appeals form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the appellant is harassing the public authorities viz. ICAR, RLBCAU, CAFRI, IGFRI etc. A close scrutiny of the nature of information sought by the Appellant in the above mentioned 17 RTI applications and the case decided on 27.04.2020 shows that the appellant is seeking all and sundry information regarding the employees of IGFRI. These RTI applications appear to be just a way of taking revenge against the public authority and showing his personal vengeance against the organisation as a whole. It is also noted that the appellant has filed 10 these appeals prior to the order of the Commission dated 27.04.2020 but has pursued the second appeals, not paying any heed to the several orders passed by the Commission advising him not to file similar RTI applications in future. It will not be out of place to give a list of all his RTI applications decided by the Commission so far as per the list placed below:
File No. Name of the Public Date of hearing
Authority
1 CIC/RLCAU/A/2018/156686 Rani Lakshmi Bai Central 27/04/2020
Agricultural University
2 CIC/RLCAU/A/2018/169843 Rani Lakshmi Bai Central 27/04/2020
Agricultural University
3 CIC/CAFRI/A/2018/169839 Central Agroforestry 21/04/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
4 CIC/CAFRI/A/2018/169837 Central Agroforestry 21/04/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
5 CIC/INARI/A/2018/158662 Indian Agricultural Research 21/04/2020
Institute (ICAR)
6 CIC/CAFRI/A/2018/160651 Central Agroforestry 21/04/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
7 CIC/CAFRI/A/2018/154715 Central Agroforestry 21/04/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
8 CIC/CAFRI/A/2018/154714 Central Agroforestry 21/04/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
9 CIC/CAFRI/A/2018/154710 Central Agroforestry 21/04/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
10 CIC/CAFRI/A/2018/154708 Central Agroforestry 21/04/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
11 CIC/IGFRI/A/2018/170909 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/02/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
12 CIC/IGFRI/A/2018/170907 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/02/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
13 CIC/IGFRI/A/2018/153538 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/02/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
14 CIC/IGFRI/A/2018/160316 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/02/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
15 CIC/IGFRI/A/2018/160666 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/02/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
16 CIC/IGFRI/A/2018/169834 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/02/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
17 CIC/IGFRI/A/2018/169835 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/02/2020
Research Institute (ICAR)
18 CIC/ICARH/A/2018/160653 Indian Council of Agricultural 27/01/2020
Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
11
19 CIC/IGFRI/A/2018/163969/IC Indian Council of Agricultural 27/01/2020 ARH Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
20 CIC/ICARH/A/2018/160320 Indian Council of Agricultural 27/01/2020 Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
21 CIC/ICARH/A/2018/148756 Indian Council of Agricultural 13/12/2019 Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
22 CIC/IGFRI/A/2018/143102 Indian Grassland and Fodder 13/12/2019 Research Institute (ICAR) 23 CIC/INARI/A/2018/127827 Indian Agricultural Research 13/12/2019 Institute (ICAR) 24 CIC/IGFRI/A/2018/150497 Indian Grassland and Fodder 13/12/2019 Research Institute (ICAR) 25 CIC/IGFRI/A/2018/148763 Indian Grassland and Fodder 13/12/2019 Research Institute (ICAR) 26 CIC/PMOIN/A/2018/130203 Prime Minister's Office 16/10/2019 27 CIC/DOARE/A/2017/146049/ Ministry of Agriculture 29/05/2019 MAGRI 28 CIC/ICARH/A/2017/181266 Indian Council of Agricultural 25/03/2019 Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
29 CIC/UGCOM/A/2017/181256/ Central Agroforestry 25/03/2019
CAFRI Research Institute (ICAR)
30 CIC/UGCOM/A/2017/181262/ Rani Lakshmi Bai Central 25/03/2009
RLCAU Agricultural University
31 CIC/UGCOM/A/2017/181261/ Rani Lakshmi Bai Central 25/03/2019
RLCAU Agricultural University
32 CIC/UGCOM/A/2017/181260/ Rani Lakshmi Bai Central 25/03/2019
RLCAU Agricultural University
33 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/181244 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/03/2019
Research Institute (ICAR)
34 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/181255 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/03/2019
Research Institute (ICAR)
35 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/181252 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/03/2019
Research Institute (ICAR)
36 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/181254 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/03/2019
Research Institute (ICAR)
37 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/181245 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/03/2019
Research Institute (ICAR)
38 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/181247 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/03/2019
Research Institute (ICAR)
39 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/181249 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/03/2019
Research Institute (ICAR)
40 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/181250 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/03/2019
Research Institute (ICAR)
41 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/177261 Indian Grassland and Fodder 25/03/2019
Research Institute (ICAR)
12
42 CIC/ICARH/A/2017/146053 Indian Council of Agricultural 06/02/2019 Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
43 CIC/MAGRI/A/2017/146071 Ministry of Agriculture 06/02/2019 44 CIC/CARIT/A/2017/146059 ICAR Central Island 20/09/2018 Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair 45 CIC/CARIT/A/2017/146058 ICAR Central Island 20/09/2018 Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair 46 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/146065 Indian Grassland and Fodder 07/09/2018 Research Institute (ICAR) 47 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/146061 Indian Grassland and Fodder 07/09/2018 Research Institute (ICAR) 48 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/146070 Indian Grassland and Fodder 13/09/2018 Research Institute (ICAR) 49 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/146063 Indian Grassland and Fodder 07/09/2018 Research Institute (ICAR) 50 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/146066 Indian Grassland and Fodder 13/09/2018 Research Institute (ICAR) 51 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/146069 Indian Grassland and Fodder 13/09/2018 Research Institute (ICAR) 52 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/146062 Indian Grassland and Fodder 07/09/2018 Research Institute (ICAR) 53 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/146067 Indian Grassland and Fodder 13/09/2018 Research Institute (ICAR) 54 CIC/CARIT/A/2017/146056 ICAR Central Island 05/09/2018 Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair 55 CIC/CARIT/A/2017/146054 ICAR Central Island 05/09/2018 Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair 56 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/117784 Indian Grassland and Fodder 20/06/2018 Research Institute (ICAR) 57 CIC/IGFRI/A/2017/113253 Indian Grassland and Fodder 20/06/2018 Research Institute (ICAR) 58 CIC/NRCAG/A/2017/113252 National Research Centre for 21/11/2017 Agroforestry (ICAR) 59 CIC/NRCAG/A/2017/113251 National Research Centre for 21/11/2017 Agroforestry (ICAR) 60 CIC/NRCAG/A/2017/191773 National Research Centre for 21/11/2017 Agroforestry (ICAR) 61 CIC/NRCAG/A/2017/117782 National Research Centre for 21/11/2017 Agroforestry (ICAR) 62 CIC/NRCAG/A/2017/117780 National Research Centre for 21/11/2017 Agroforestry (ICAR) 13 63 CIC/CARIT/A/2017/117779 ICAR Central Island 21/11/2017 Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair 64 CIC/ICARH/A/2017/117781 Indian Council of Agricultural 20/11/2017 Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
65 CIC/CARIT/A/2017/117785 ICAR Central Island 20/11/2017 Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair 66 CIC/UGCOM/A/2017/110425 University Grants 20/11/2017 Commission 67 CIC/ICARH/A/2017/188734 Indian Council of Agricultural 20/11/2017 Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
68 CIC/IGFRI/A/2016/296991 Indian Grassland and Fodder 10/08/2017 Research Institute (ICAR) 69 CIC/SH/A/2016/000420 Ministry of Agriculture 31/05/2017 70 CIC/SH/A/2016/000540 Indian Council of Agricultural 29/05/2017 Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
71 CIC/SH/A/2015/002022 Indian Council of Agricultural 17/03/2017 Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
72 CIC/SH/A/2016/000664 Indian Council of Agricultural 28/02/2017 Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
73 CIC/SH/A/2016/000663 Indian Council of Agricultural 27/02/2017 Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
74 CIC/SH/A/2016/000662 Indian Council of Agricultural 27/02/2017 Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
75 CIC/SH/A/2015/001970 Ministry of Agriculture 09/11/2016 76 CIC/LS/A/2013/000981 Ministry of Agriculture 08/07/2013 77 CIC/LS/A/2013/000981 Ministry of Agriculture 08/07/2013 78 CIC/LS/A/2013/000468 Ministry of Agriculture 08/03/2013 79 CIC/LS/A/2013/000468 Ministry of Agriculture 08/03/2013 80 CIC/LS/A/2012/001457 Ministry of Agriculture 12/11/2012 81 CIC/LS/A/2012/002590 Ministry of Agriculture 08/01/2013 82 CIC/SS/A/2011/002049 Ministry of Agriculture 12/07/2012 83 CIC/SS/A/2011/002048 Ministry of Agriculture 12/07/2012 84 CIC/SS/A/2011/002047 Ministry of Agriculture 12/07/2012 14 85 CIC/SS/A/2011/002046 Indian Council of Agricultural 12/07/2012 Research (ICAR) Hqrs.
86 CIC/SS/A/2011/002045 Ministry of Agriculture 12/07/2012 87 CIC/SS/C/2011/001008 Ministry of Agriculture 29/02/2012 88 CIC/SS/A/2011/002044 Ministry of Agriculture 09/02/2012 89 CIC/SM/C/2011/001244 President Secretariat 19/10/2011 90 CIC/SS/A/2011/000389 Ministry of Agriculture 09/09/2011 These cases becomes a fit illustration for the observation of the Apex Court in Aditya Bandhopadhyay's case that -
"...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...."
In the second appeal memos and various other letters submitted by the appellant in connection with his RTI applications, he stated that he is fighting against corruption prevailing in the respondent organisation, however, the fact remains that the manner adopted by him shows otherwise. All this exercise on the part of the appellant particularly keeping in view the number of the RTI applications fixed today for hearing and those heard earlier, negates the very purpose of RTI Act. In other words, even if the appellant was having a noble cause in filing these RTI applications according to him, the fact remains that the means adopted by the appellant speaks volumes of his ignorance of the spirit of the RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI applicants to not transgress the spirit of RTI Act by clogging the functioning of public authorities with such repetitive, cumbersome and implausible RTI applications, more so, when such applicant was already restrained from filing further RTI applications by the Commission itself.
It will not be out of place to quote verbatim the observation made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Rajni Maindiratta Vs Directorate of 15 Education (North West- B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015].The relevant paras are extracted below:
'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.' A more lucid rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of ShailSahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still.' '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.' The aforesaid dicta particularly resonates with the said set of cases as the Respondent office is a vital part of the Department of Defence Production engaged in the production of warfare equipments in the area of land, sea and air systems. If the resources of this office are diverted into addressing the umpteen RTI Applications and First Appeals of the Appellant alone, it will lead to a situation of colossal wastage of its valuable manpower and infrastructure.
After looking at the non-stop trail of RTI applications filed by the appellant, it appears that he has misconceived the role of the Central Information Commission. The CIC is an adjudicating body to give relief only in such cases where it is found that the relevant information is not provided to the applicant. However, in the present cases, the CPIO and the FAA cannot be expected to satisfy the appellant, when the appellant is not in search of information but only settling his grievances against the department by filing multiple , 16 vexatious, repetitive RTI applications followed by appeals. All the 66 appeals today fixed for hearing are inter-related in some manner or the other and are clearly indicative of absolute misuse of the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Commission also deems it fit to highlight the fact that although there is no provision in the RTI Act to penalize such applicants for abusing his right to Information or clogging the public office under the guise of exercising right to information, but where the process of the Court is being abused, the need arises to take appropriate action against such applicants while following the concept of inherent powers vested in the superior Courts to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
The appellant should know that the RTI Act is a means to promote public interest and should not to be used as an instrument to harass the public authority and sort out his personal grievances for which other fora exist. His multiple RTI applications have a grave impact on the functioning of the respondent organization, and if this is allowed, the public authority cannot focus on their core duties and their entire time will be devoted to such frivolous/vexatious/repeated/multiple RTI questions as can be seen that for every hearing, the concerned officers have to leave their core and important work and be present for the hearings. This is undoubtedly misuse and it has to be checked. He cannot use the RTI route by flooding the public authority with numerous RTIs on the same or similar issues.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission without commenting on the merits of each of the appeals deems it appropriate to dismiss these appeals and orders no relief in the matter. It is rather apparent that the appellant's only intention was to harass the public authority as well as to waste the time and resources of both the public authority and the Commission. He is cautioned to refrain from filing such RTI applications henceforth and is directed to follow the directions given in the earlier orders of the Commission as mentioned above in this order. In case any such repeated second appeal or complaint is filed before the Commission, the same shall be dismissed in limine. The Appellant is once again advised to make judicious use of the cherished statute of the RTI Act in future.17
The Commission to ensure no further misuse of the time and resources of the Commission, directs the appellant to file an affidavit in future with his appeals that the same subject matter was never dealt with by the Commission before. A copy of this order is marked to the Deputy Registrar, Central Registry, CIC for information and necessary action. The appellant is advised to use the RTI Act in an appropriate manner henceforth.
The above mentioned appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date Copy to:
2. Deputy Registrar, Central Registry, CIC 18 Annexure S.No File No
1. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/108963
2. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/108964
3. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/108965
4. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/109816
5. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/114243
6. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/117560
7. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/135116
8. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/135042
9. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/135041
10. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/135466
11. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/135465
12. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/136438
13. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/136612
14. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/142719
15. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/142720
16. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/159786
17. CIC/IGFRI/A/2019/163230 19