Central Information Commission
Omprakash Kashiram vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 3 January, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOP&T/A/2021/119762
Omprakash Kashiram ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Lokpal of India, RTI Cell,
Plot No.6, Vasant Kunj
Institutional Area, New
Delhi-110070 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/01/2023
Date of Decision : 02/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/02/2021
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 29/03/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11/05/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2021 seeking the following information:
"1.Please provide the documents for not return the second appeal 08.12.2020 with letter No. F-12016/13/2021-Lokpal/322 dated 15.02.2021 for re-submission with 'Form' under the Lokpal Rules 2020 and complaint has rejected by Shri Awinash 1 Chandra, Under Secretary and second appeal dated 08.12.2020 still not returned with above letter.
2.Please provide the documents for not taken suo moto action for repeal of all agriculture Acts of Parliament for incomplete Acts like Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 where no form is found in Lokpal and Lokayukutas Act 2013 and need to issue the Lokpal Rule 2020 and Lokpal and Lokayukutas Act 2013 will be changed by the various high courts and Supreme Court orders in later state as well as the all agriculture Acts will be changed by the Ministry by introducing Rules and amendment through various high Court and the Supreme Court in later state which will affect the farmers. The following irregularities are found in all agriculture Act:-
(a)The Central Government has not declared their totally yearly income before enactment of three Agriculture Acts under which they are not able to pay double Income to farmers so central Government has given chances to private parties to Increasing double income of the farmers.
(b) All state Government have not declared their yearly income before enactment of Agriculture Acts under which they are not able to pay double income to farmers from total yearly income of state governments so now they will give chance to private party for increasing income of farmers.
(c)All basic infrastructures were made since from 1952 to till date in Five Year plans and same are not indicated in Three Agricultures Acts.
(d) ln Rajya Sabha the ruling party is not majority for pass three agriculture acts and all Acts were passed without majority of members of ruling party in Rajya Sabha. The chairman has not demanded from the Central Government for issue white papers of income of Central Government.
(e) Speaker of Lok Sabha has not demanded the total income of Central Government in each year for knowing that the Central Government is not able to pay double income to farmers so they will give chance to private parties to increasing double income of farmers after pass of three agricultures Act in Lok Sabha.
3.Copy of approval from Lokpal of India for rejection of complaint dated 24.01.2021 and there is no such format in Lokapl and Lokayuktas Act 2013 and 2 Shri Awinash Chandra is not part of autonomous body of Lokpal of India for rejection of complaint dated 24.01.2021.
4.Please provide the documents the LOP of Loksabha and Rajya Sabha in public authority for register of complaint under the Lokpal and Lokyuktas Act 2013.
5.Please provide the names of all public authority/posts which are coming under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013.
6.The deputy registrar is not issuing registration numbers or diary number of second appeals is not coming under the Prevention and Corruption Act 1988 from last 15 years."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present. (Notice of hearing received back undelivered as "Refused") Respondent: Rajesh Kumar, US & CPIO present through audio conference.
Decision:
The instant case was heard as a part of 11 other cases of the Appellant listed as a bunch matter. Now, this bench has summarily rejected 20 cases of the Appellant in the recent past on 13.12.2022 with the following observations:
"At the outset, the Commission recalls the adverse remarks recorded against the appalling misuse of the RTI Act being continued by the Appellant time and again. While this bench of the Commission has alone heard more than 20 cases, the instant case is being heard as a part of 19 other cases of the same Appellant filed against different public authorities, and the records of the Commission suggest that till date more than 400 odd cases of him have been 3 disposed of by different benches. This bench had recorded in one such case heard vide File No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/126122 as under:
'The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of this bench dated 10.02.2021 in an earlier set of appeals filed by the same Appellant (CIC/DOP&T/A/2019/114497 + 10 other Appeals) wherein the following adverse observations were recorded:
'This bench of the Commission heard 11 other Appeals of the Appellant simultaneously and upon a conjoint consideration of these cases it is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant is unabashedly filing multiple RTI Applications, which in most cases is repetitive in nature as the same RTI Application is filed with different public authorities. Moreover, the queries of the Appellant neither conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act nor can these be comprehended easily. The Appellant seeks all sundry information under the garb of transparency and in the process of dealing with these RTI Applications, at some point in time, invariably; each public authority is dealing with the same RTI Application more than once. The Commission is also irked to note that in all of these Appeals, the Appellant has stated in his Second Appeal that he does not want to avail of the opportunity to plead his case in person or through his representative also. This further establishes the fact that the Appellant is merely a habitual RTI Applicant with no intention of gaining access to information. The RTI Applications, First Appeal(s) and Second Appeals of the Appellant without any substance or merit has a cascading effect on the functioning of the public authorities and throttles the letter and spirit of the RTI Act in addition to causing a huge loss of public money on stationery and allied resources. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Appellant shall note that even the superior Courts have recognized the misuse of the RTI Act as an impediment to ensuring transparency and probity in the functioning of the government through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation......' xxx' The instant case appears to be a mere extension of the averred appeals in terms of the manner in which the information is sought for and the grounds on 4 which the Appeal(s) are premised on. Further, as observed in the earlier cases, the Appellant has indicated in the grounds of the instant Appeal that he does not want to avail of the opportunity to plead his case. In addition to this, the Appellant has also returned the notice of hearing of the Commission as "Refused"; he fails to place proper facts on record in terms of the copy of replies received by him or he simply decides for himself that he is not required to accept certain replies that he deems to be improper or returns the replies to the CPIO(s) citing expiry of mandated time period. The Appellant is strongly rebuked for making a mockery of the RTI Act in as much as the contents of all of his RTI Applications and grounds of Appeal(s) are outright ludicrous and completely bereft of merit. The time and resources of the Commission invested in disposing off the cases of the Appellant as well as the time and resources invested by the public authorities in responding to the Commission's notice(s) as well as attending to the hearings clearly appears to be an avoidable cost to the public exchequer, and the Appellant ought to have due regard to this fact in the spirit of the RTI Act.
The Appellant not seeking for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act yet being hysterical in his Second Appeal(s) 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 authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.' 5 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.6
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(s)."
Adverting to the square applicability of the above observations to the instant case, the appeal is dismissed.
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 / 7