Central Information Commission
Drp K Pandey vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 October, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-SA
CIC/DS/A/2013/001741-SA
CIC/DS/A/2013/002561-SA
Appellant : P.K.Pandey
Respondent : 1. Maulana Azad Medical College
2.Health & Family Welfare Dept., GNCTD Date of hearing : 13.8.2014, 2.09.2014 & 8.09.2014 Date of decision : 1.10.2014 Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) Referred Sections : Section 3, 19(3) of the RTI Act Result : Appeal allowed / Disposed of Observation: Admonition and Condemnation of a highly educated doctor for his abuse of RTI.
Summary of the decision: The appellant Dr PK Pandey in this case being a very highly educated doctor/professor, behaved in a most unreasonable manner, not showing any inclination to listen to reason, finding happiness in agonizing senior/colleague teachers/doctors who submitted their sufferings and harassment he has been inflicting on them since years without any legitimate goal or purpose.
The Commission considers this case as the repetitive misuse of RTI Act, assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and thus, abuse of RTI Act.
The Commission finds him to be a cantankerous litigant and continuous trouble maker for the office and colleagues.
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 1 The Commission observes that all three victims of his repeated nuisance applications have every right to pursue for their remedies under both civil and criminal law. They complained that the RTI in his hands got converted into a tool of oppression and intimidation of honest doctors.
As per the Madras HC in P. Jayasankar Vs Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu and Gunaseelan, I.P.S. [W.P. Nos. 3776 and 3778 of 2013], this abusive applicant deserves to be disqualified. But the Commissioner desist from disqualifying him, hoping that he would not create such situation in future and for now
a) records its admonition and condemnation of this cantankerous individual for his misuse of RTI which is highly unbecoming of the education he acquired, and
b) records a stern warning that any such attempt to harass the colleagues with same or similar RTI application would be viewed as serious obstruction to activity of public authority and appropriate action as per law and judicial interpretation shall be taken against him.
The Commission directs the public authority to
a) put this order along with affidavits of the doctors, and the responses given to hid earlier RTI requests in public domain i.e., official website,
b) send copies to the concerned Directorate & others, the officers who were harassed by him and
c) place a copy on notice board at a conspicuous place for understanding of general people and
d) reject or reply any future repetitive RTI requests, if any, from this appellant in future with reference to this order.
Besides, the Commission recommends the public authority to initiate disciplinary action against him for this kind of indiscipline examining whether this amounts to misconduct because his continuous misuse of RTI is resulting in obstruction of activities of the public authority, causing criminal waste of time of PIO, his colleagues and the CIC, and inform the progress to the Commission. Any non compliance of this order would lead to action under Section 20 of RTI Act, and any victim officer of his harassment is under a duty to report against non-compliance of this order.
Heard on 13.8.14. Appellant present [CIC/DS/A/2013/001740 - SA]. Respondent is represented by Shri H. R. Sharma and several officers at different times. For last two hearings [in CIC/DS/A/2013/001741 - SA & CIC/DS/A/2013/002561 - SA] including this appellant, though received the hearing notice, chose to be absent. In continuation of his habit of filing complaints and making irresponsible remarks CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 2 against all officers, he filed request to transfer the second appeal from this commission with baseless allegation that for 'extraneous reasons' the Commission is supporting the respondent public authority. The Commission dismisses his allegations as irresponsible similar to his abuse of right to information.
Common Order is passed for all the three Appeals as the nature of information sought through the RTI applications are the same and the parties involved are also the same.
2. The Appellant, a senior Doctor, filed an RTI application dt.2.7.2013 with the PIO, Health & Family Welfare, GNCTD/ Maulana Azad Medical College (hereinafter referred as MAMC) seeking information on eleven points [CIC/DS/A/2013/001740- SA & 001741-SA] with respect to his original application for furnishing information U/S 2 (f)(i)(j), 4(1)(b)(d), 7(1)(9) of RTI Act 2005 on action taken on appellants 1st reminder dated 17-06-2013 no. GAD/2013/24640/19-8 and representation dated 27.2.13 to Chief Secretary, GNCT, regarding Ghost (that is how he described in his applications) employment in GNCT, Dept. of Health, sans post for 23 years, freak promotions and pay fixation under FR 22 against 3 non-existent temporary post of assistant professors in ophthalmology that ceased to exist as on 1. 3. 1990 at M.A.M.C. Viz (i) File Noting made at GNCT, Deptt. Of Health & FW in relation to the representation dated 27-02-2013 and 1st reminder dated 17-06-2013 to Chief Secretary , GNCT, (ii) Decisions taken by GNCT, Health Dept to continue/discontinue with ghost employment as director professor for Drs Kamlesh and Mrs Uma against non-existent temporary post of assistant professor carrying a fixed sanctioned time scale, that ceased to exist as on 1- 3-90. etc. The PIO responded on 19.7.13 & 1.8.2013. Not satisfied with, he filed an appeal on 31.7.2013 & 12.8.2013 with the First CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 3 Appellate Authority of the respective Public authority, who disposed it of vide order dt.9.9.13 & 30.8.2013.
3 In CIC/DS/A/2013/002561-SA, the appellant had filed RTI application dated 12-8-2013 with MAMC regarding Original application for furnishing information U/S 2 (f)(i)(j), 4(1)(b)(d), 7(1)(9) of RTI Act 2005 on action taken on appellants 1st reminder dated 17-06-2013 no. GAD/2013/24640/19-8 and representation dated 27.2.13 to Chief Secretary, GNCT, regarding 'Ghost' employment in GNCT, Dept. Of Health, sans post for 23 years, freak promotions and pay fixation under FR 22 against 3 non-existent temporary post of assistant professors in ophthalmology that ceased to exist as on 1 3 90 at M.A.M.C Viz (i) total number of existing faculty post at MAMC, New Delhi (ii) Break up of existing temporary and permanent faculty post at MAMC & (iii) Break up of existing posts, those of CHS and those sanctioned by DA/GNCT etc. PIO responded on 11-09-2013. Being unsatisfied with the reply provided by the PIO, the appellant preferred First Appeal on 14-09-2013. FAA in his Order dated 08- 10-2013 stated that Information available has been given to the appellant and thereafter he directed that as much information as is available be given to the appellant.
4. The Commission on perusal of the information sought observed that the same has been furnished earlier in response to his various RTI applications. It is the Appellant's contention that three persons were appointed in certain posts which were not sanctioned and it is his belief that once it is established that the posts were not sanctioned, the people occupying those posts for several years would lose them. At the first instance it appears as if appellant was exposing an irregularity, but after asking some questions to him and respondents, it is discovered there was CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 4 nothing like that and his questions sans public interest. With irresponsible repetitions it assumed serious form of abuse that can be classified as frivolous, vexatious and annoying. It also causes mental injury to the officers who were in those posts creating a baseless apprehension that they might lost their posts because of this persons perceived technical problem, which in fact was nobody's case. Three of his senior colleagues represented to Commission in his presence how they were being harassed and put to constant trouble of doubt and uncertainty just for the sake of that by his repetitive applications under RTI and other fora. They called it as a kind of sadism. They made written submissions also.
5. Dr. Usha Yadava (Professor, M.A.M.C) in her written statement submitted before the Commission has stated that :
a. The appellant who is a junior officer to her has been filing complaints and representations incessantly on such grounds, which are false and baseless.
b. She submitted that the representations filed by him before the Cadre Controlling Authority i.e MHFW, Government of India, led to MHFW baring him from filling further representations vide its Order No. A 12034/26/2010 - CHS III dated 25-05-2012.
c. She also stated that Dr Pandey (appellant) has moved from pillar to post in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi High Court, and in the past, the appellant had moved the Supreme Court on the same matter and topic. His O.A 1284 of 1997 before the CAT, his Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court (W.P(C) No. 4023 of 2011) were all dismissed through concurrent findings.
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 5 d. She further submitted that even after the ruling of the Delhi High Court, he has filed numerous requests under the Right to Information Act, before the M.A.M.C, on the same issue on which relief was denied to him by the court, in order to further harass her and the officials and further create problems in the functioning of the institute.
e. That the behavior of the appellant is not becoming of a senior officer, this compulsive behavior must be stopped for the proper functioning of the M.A.M.C and Guru Nanak Eye Centre. Urgent action in this regard is also required so that the undersigned and all the parties, including Dr. Pandey, can return to the proper discharge of their day to day activities without further delay, in the general interest of the public and the hundreds of patients that are waiting to be treated at the Guru Nanak Eye Centre. The current state of events mean that substantial manpower and resources - all at the cost of taxpayer - are wasted on the issue even after the ruling of the judicial bodies i.e CAT and Delhi H.C. In order to carry out the work assigned to each doctor by the Union of India, such repeated attempts to harass render it extremely difficult to carry out medical duties.
f. On the basis of above facts and circumstances, "I request that Dr. Pandey may kindly be restricted and be barred from filing further requests under the RTI Act I respect of this matter before any Competent authority at once, and do justice to general public, officers/other officials of the MAMC".
6. Shri. Hans Raj Singh, Head of Office in Maulana Azad Medical College, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in his affidavit submitted before the Commission as follows:
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 6 a. That Dr P. K Pandey is habitual in filing RTI applications against Dr. Kamlesh and Dr Usha Yadava, both are working as Director-Professor in Ophthalmology Department.
b. That Dr Pandey is not satisfied with the replies provided by the SPIO, MAMC and is frequently filling First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority, MAMC against his RTI applications.
c. That Dr. Pandey preferring Second Appeals before the Central Information Commission.
d. That in the department Dr Pandey has filed numerious RTI's before Various SPIO in various Govt. Department.
e. That due to the filling of RTI's by Dr Pandey, the work of Guru Nanak Eye Centre is hampered due to personally attending appeals in CIC and various Courts by Dr. Pandey, Dr Kamlesh and Dr. Usha Yadava as they have to attend OPD, Operation theatre and other duties assigned to them. That due to appeal, SPIO, APIO and two-three other officials of the MAMC are regularly attending CIC and other courts due to this litigation work of office is badly hampered.
f. That Dr. Pandey had filed cases in Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and after dismissal, he filed OA before Principal Bench, CAT. After dismissal of that OA, he has moved to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and its Principal bench of CAT, there also, the case was dismissed and now, he filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the matter is sub-judice. Earlier, he filed several representations before various Competent authorities and his cadre CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 7 controlling authority has rejected his representation and was barred for filling representations before GOI.
g. That in the directions of the higher authority at the level of the state government, a warning was also issued by Dy. Director of Administration, MAMC for desisting him from these type of activities.
h. That mostly Dr. Pandey had filed RTI on the similar issues i.e Regarding employment and ghost posts.
7. Dr Kamlesh in her written submission before the Commission have submitted as follows :
a. She was working as Director-Professor (Ophthalmology) at MAMC with total service of more than 30 years.
b. That she and her Colleague Prof. Usha Yadava were being harassed by routine RTI applications by the appellant repeatedly on the same subject and issues with little twisting of facts for more than 6 years.
c. That the appellant was only putting the applications before MAMC, but also before Health Ministry, Delhi, Govt. of India, M/O Health, Secretaries of Health both at the Centre and the state, Lt. Governor's Office, Chief Secretary, Delhi and others resulting in huge loss of time and manpower which could have been utilized for so many public cause.
d. That the appellant was misusing the RTI and misguiding, threatening and harassing the officials in the name of RTI with the intention of getting false documents for his favour with clear intention to defame me.
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 8 e. That he was also warned by the Ministry not to do so especially when all the relevant information has been provided to him. That the appellant had examined all my personal files including the service book many a times and obtained the required information as he desired. The appellant had also taken the matter of Seniority with these documents to the court twice including review petition and his application was dismissed twice.
f. That the appellant has filed the same matter as agreed to gain seniority on the basis of irrelevant and baseless grounds because of his one directional misunderstanding and delusional thoughts.
g. That the appellant has caused lot of disturbance and harassment, as we are the senior most faculties with lot of clinical, surgical, academic, research and administrative work which are disturbed due to these baseless and repeated RTI applications on the same issue to defame us especially when all the available information has been provided.
h. It is therefore, requested that Dr. P.K Pandey be debarred from filing such RTI applications in future and warn him not to misuse the power of RTI Act.
8. The Commission in its earlier order No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA delivered on 25-6-2014 in the case of R.C.Jain Vs. DTC, with respect to RTI applications which are repetitive and harassing in nature had observed as follows :
"Repetitive use of RTI an ABUSE
5. The Commission considers this case as the case of repetitive use of RTI Act, assuming the proportion of CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 9 harassment to the Public Authority and thus, abuse of RTI Act, by a disgruntled employee.
6. The respondent officers made fervent appeals to the Commission that they were compelled to spend most of the time in answering harassingly repeated questions about the same subject matter repeatedly asked from different angles; and about individual officers, whom, the applicant assumed to be responsible for the grievance. The Commission found that the applicant was one of the four disgruntled employees against whom action was taken or their claims were denied.
RTI: Not a rendezvous of disgruntled elements
7. .... The Commission also noted an atmosphere of fear and worry was spread in the offices and the officers are hesitating to take action against erring staff members for fear of facing flood of questions under RTI. .....
...
Placing RTI abusers information in public domain
9. To address the problem of 'harassing & repeated questions', the Commission recommends the respondent authority to analyze all the RTI applications filed by such appellants, compile all the questions contained therein and indicate the information provided against them. That consolidated information along with a background note based on facts, avoiding unfounded allegations should also be placed on website besides sending a copy to the applicant and the concerned Information Commission. The Commission also recommends exhibiting such information in their notice board at the entrance or at any conspicuous place in their office and posting a photograph of such a notification on the website.
10. The entire information about the repeated RTI questions by appellants, and the documents given by the Public authority, the private interest of the appellants, if any, lack of public interest in the said RTI applications, etc. also should be kept in the public domain, so that people do not resort to filing repeated vexatious RTI applications leading to clogging of the public authority and depriving them of their valuable time that could have been spent on performance of their regular duties. The information in website also will serve as response to repeated RTI question. The same may be referred in the responses to first and second appeals.
....
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 10 Res judicata = already decided
12. .... Though Right to Information Act, 2005 did not have any specific provision to bar the re-petition for information like Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the universal principle of civil justice 'res judicata' will certainly apply and the repeated request need to be rejected with an emphasis. Two Latin maxims form the basis of this rule, they are: 'interest republicae ut sit finis litium' (= it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation) and 'nemo devet vis vexari pro una et eadem cause" (=no man should be taxed twice over for the same cause). If the PIOs, First Appellate Authorities and the Commissions entertain the repeated RTI applications, there will be no end to the information litigation and the public authorities would be continuously taxed for no fault of them. ....
14. The Commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority, and based on the information received, file a bunch of RTI questions from the same or other wings of same public authority, or from other authority. This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public authority as the uncertainty continues. Even the PIO of Central Information Commission is flooded with such repeated questions from thousands angles by same person running into hundreds of RTI applications. As the PIOs went on answering, more and more questions are generated out of the same and in the same proportion the number of repeated first appeals and second appeals also will be growing.
....
No scope for repeating under RTI Act
21. The Commission thus holds that though RTI Act, did not specifically provide as a ground of refusing the information, it is implied from the objective and various provisions of RTI Act, that any citizen has right to information only once and not repeatedly.
....
Commission shall record ABUSE, admonish ABUSER
25. There is no provision in RTI Act, 2005 to penalize the applicant for abusing his right to information or clogging public office. However the Commission recommends that the fact of abuse of RTI Act, 2005 shall be recorded and Commission should notify the admonition, direction or recommendation if any, to the applicants not to resort to abuse anymore along with recommendation to public authorities to refuse such questions. If any applicant resorts to three such repeated RTI applications, the Commission may even recommend blocking CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 11 of such abuse and direct the public authority not to entertain the same applicant anymore, which also has to be notified.
Waste of public time and obstructing RTI
26. All the above discussion can be consolidated into:
(i) Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty.
(ii) Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction of flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act.
Citizen has no Right to Repeat
27..... this Commission observes:
(i) The citizen do not have a right to repeat the same or similar or slightly altered information request under RTI Act, 2005, for which he already got response.
(ii) Once an RTI application is answered, the appellants shall refrain themselves from filing another RTI application against the public authority as once information is received and held by them or posted in public domain, because such information is deemed to have ceased to be 'held' by the public authority.
Repetition shall be ground of refusal
(iii) Such repetition shall be considered as reasonable ground of refusal under the RTI Act.
(iv)An applicant or appellant repeating the RTI application or appeal either once or multiple times, suppressing the fact of earlier application and receipt of the answer, the CPIO of public authority shall reject it forthwith after intimating it along with reasons.
Appeals can be rejected
(v) The First Appellate Authority and Commission shall be right and reasonable to consider this as a ground for rejecting the first or second appeal, respectively among other reasons if any. "
9. The appellant in this case being a very highly educated doctor, behaved in a most unreasonable manner, not showing any inclination to listen to reason, finding happiness when his agonized colleagues were explaining the sufferings and harassment he has been inflicting on them since years without any goal or purpose. They argued that assuming that there was no technical sanction for their posts, his CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 12 belief that they would be thrown out would be nothing but wild delusion. When they were appointed by a duly constituted select committee they would get a right to employment which cannot be deprived of by deficiency if any and it will become a legitimate duty of employer to rectify the deficiency and continue the employment. They said that he finds enjoyment by putting all three of the colleagues in mental agony. They pleaded to put an end to the torture.
10. When Commission tried to tell him that RTI did not provide for repeating same RTI application after procuring information as that information was already held by him, he was not inclined to understand and filed some more such petitions.
11. The Commission finds him to be a cantankerous litigant and continuous trouble maker for the office and colleagues. He deserves to be disqualified as abuser of RTI being an obstruction in public activities of the office. It appears from his numerous petitions before numerous fora on the same subject that he might have left with no time to perform the duty of ophthalmological doctor and professor, as per his designation to the extent that time was consumed by his frivolous and vexatious applications. Besides dereliction of duties, he is also creating nuisance obstructing others from performing their duties with free mind and in fearless atmosphere. The Commission finds there is substance in their agony that he remained a pain and speed breaker and major nuisance in the office, performance of service by him could be doubted as he spends all his time in filing frivolous applications, discussing about it with others and thus rendering disservice to the hospital. The Commission finds that any amount of condemnation for unreasonable conduct of this educated person is insufficient in this case. The Commission notes that persons like him will create disbelief and destroy the faith in RTI and other legal mechanisms. The Commission observes that all victims of his CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 13 repeated nuisance applications have every right to pursue for their remedies in both civil and criminal proceedings against him. They can examine whether his repeated petitions would fall under the definition of a crime under Section 167 of Indian Penal Code which deals with the public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury, for which a punishment of imprisonment up to three years is prescribed. His actions also might fall under the crime of public nuisance under Section 268 as his acts cause injury, obstruction, or annoyance to persons in the vicinity, for which punishment is provided under Section 290 of IPC. Section 353 of IPC punishes a person who assaults (creating an apprehension in the mind) with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as public servant, with imprisonment up to two years. Three senior doctors are alleging that by filing frivolous applications he is obstructing them from discharging their duties as public servants. Besides, an atmosphere of serious indiscipline is prevailing in office as he continuously obstructs the public servants from performing their duties with these kind of frivolous, vexatious mischievous petitions.
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, while explaining the significance of RTI had also observed as follows:
"67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the 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 counterproductive 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 CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 14 Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing "information furnishing", at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
13. The Commission observes that the repeated questions under RTI unrelated to transparency, devoid of public interest, full of reasonless personal animosity against colleagues, besides filing petitions before various fora, will amount to indiscriminate abuse of RTI which become a tool to obstruct the work in the office and to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among the doctors working in the respondent authority institution and RTI in his hands got converted into a tool of oppression and intimidation of honest doctors who are striving to perform their duties.
14. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in SHAIL SAHNI Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS. [W.P.(C) 845/2014] with regard to the Misuse of the RTI Act had observed as follows :
"10. ... 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. A copy of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important and valuable rights upon a citizen."
15. The Commission finds that it is the duty of the Commission to see that such blatant misuse of RTI Act should not be allowed further and such situation need to be appropriately dealt with to secure the faith of the public in this 'Sun shine Act' and remove obstacles in functioning of public authority which would eventually prevent public authority from focusing on transparency.
CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 15 DECISION :
16. As per the Madras HC judgment in P. Jayasankar Vs Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu and Gunaseelan, I.P.S. [W.P. Nos. 3776 and 3778 of 2013], this abusive applicant deserves to be disqualified.
But the Commission desist from disqualifying him, hoping that he would not create such situation in future and for now
a) records its admonition and condemnation of this cantankerous individual for his misuse of RTI which is highly unbecoming of the education he acquired, and
b) records a stern warning that any such attempt to harass the colleagues with same or similar RTI application would be viewed as serious obstruction to activity of public authority and appropriate action as per law and judicial interpretation shall be taken against him.
17. The Commission directs the public authority to
a) put this order along with affidavits of the doctors, and the responses given to hid earlier RTI requests in public domain i.e., official website,
b) send copies to the concerned Directorate & others, the officers who were harassed by him and
c) place a copy on notice board at a conspicuous place for understanding of general people and
d) reject or reply any future repetitive RTI requests, if any, from this appellant in future with reference to this order.
18. Besides, the Commission recommends the public authority to initiate disciplinary action against him for this kind of indiscipline examining whether this amounts to misconduct because his continuous misuse of RTI is resulting in obstruction of activities of the public CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 16 authority, causing criminal waste of time of PIO, his colleagues and the CIC, and inform the progress to the Commission. Any non compliance of this order would lead to action under Section 20 of RTI Act, and any victim officer of his harassment is under a duty to report against non- compliance of this order.
19. With above observations the Commission holds that adequate and available information has been furnished to the appellant, though he deserves no information as such, and accordingly the cases are closed.
Sd/-
M. Sridhar Acharyulu Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Dy. Registrar CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 17 CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 18 CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 19 CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 20 CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 21 CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 22 CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 23 Address of the parties
1. The CPIO Department of Health & Family Welfare Govt. of NCT of Delhi 9th Level, A-Wing Delhi Secretariat IP Estate New Delhi
2. Prof. P.K.Pandey A-170, Pocket-04 Mayur Vihar Phase-I New Delhi CIC/DS/A/2013/001740-1741-2561 Page 24