Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mr.Rednam Deepak vs Visakhapatnam Port Trust on 11 April, 2012

                       Central Information Commission
            Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, 
                    Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi­110066
                   Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

                                                  Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001984
                                                               Dated: 11.04.2012

Name of Appellant                :      Shri Rednam Deepak

Name of Respondent               :      Visakhapatnam Port Trust

Date of Hearing                  :      20.03.2012

                                     ORDER

Shri Rednam Deepak, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 14.7.2011 before the Commission against the respondent Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT), Visakhapatnam for providing vague and evasive reply of his RTI-request dated 15.5.2011. The matter came up for hearing on 20.03.2012 through videoconferencing. The appellant was present and the respondent were represented by Shri Venugopal at NIC Videoconferencing Facility Centre at Visakhapatnam.

2. The appellant had filed an application dated 15.5.2011 in which he requested information on twelve queries pertaining to declaration of probation period Shri G. Krishna Bapi Raju, Law Officer, Gr. I (CL-1). At S. No. 10 is a query seeking to know how much money was taken illegally from incumbent for declaration of probation period in respect of Shri G. Krishna Bapi Raju by the Secretary, VPT. The CPIO vide his letter dated 21.5.2011 informed the appellant that no public interest was involved in his request and some of the queries are not covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, since only information in material form is to be provided under the RTI Act, 2005.

3. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first-appeal before the FAA on 1.6.2011. The FAA vide his order dated 21.6.2011, while upholding the reply of the CPIO, held that the information sought by him is further exempted under Section 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

4. The FAA has submitted his written submissions to the Commission vide his letter dated 5.3.2012 submitted that in view of the onslaught of the appellant with his innumerable applications under RTI Act and unrelenting pursuance without any public interest with various allegations of corruption against the officials without any proof or substantiation, it may be necessary and relevant to quote here the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Bench in a judgement delivered in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 (Central Board of Secondary Education and another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & others) wherein it was observed that "indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure 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 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. Now 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 prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."

5. On the other hand the appellant submits that the CPIO has not supplied the information in order to cover up his corrupt practices and illegal activities in the General Administartion Department (GAD), VPT and has thereby violated the provisions of the RTI Act, in letter and spirit.

6. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that the information as sought for by the appellant at Point No. 1 to 9 attracts the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the appellant has not established any larger public interest for the disclosure of this information. The Point Nos. 10 to 12 does not fall within the ambit of 'information' as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The matter is accordingly disposed of on the part of the Commission.

(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:

Shri Rednam Deepak, Vijay Rama Residency, Flat No. 302, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530024.

The CPIO, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, General Administration Department, Visakhapatnam-530035.

The First Appellate Authority, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, 4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001984 General Administration Department, Visakhapatnam-530035.