Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Indian Air Force on 1 March, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:- CIC/IAIRF/A/2021/660906 +
CIC/IAIRF/A/2021/660632
In the matter of:
Samir Sardana
... Appellant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer
Directorate of Personal Services
Air Head Quarters (Vayu Bhawan)
Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110 011
2. Central Public Information Officer
HQ WAC Indian Air Force
Subroto Park, New Delhi - 110 010
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 20/08/2021 CPIO replied on : 22/11/2021 First appeal filed on : 24/10/2021 First Appellate Authority order dated : Not on record Second Appeal filed on : 16/12/2021 Date of Hearing : 01/03/2023 Date of Decision : 01/03/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Wing Commander Devender and CPIO, present over VC at CIC alongwith Wing Commander Ashmita Dhawade, CPIO, WAC 1 Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. With reference to Air Force Act 1.1 Provide the name, rank, station, function of the persons whose services were terminated under Section 19 of the Air Force Act and the date of such termination (in the last 10 years).
1.2 Provide the name, rank, station, function of the persons who were dismissed, removed from service or who had their ranks reduced under Section 20 of the Air Force Act and the date of such action (in the last 10 years).
1.3 Provide the name, rank, station, function of the persons who had retired, released or discharged from service under Section 22 of the Air Force Act and the date of such action alongwith the authority which sanctioned the same (designation of authority), in the last 10 years.
2. With reference to Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman (after his return from Pakistan) 2.1 Dates and Types of the tests that the said officer was made to undergo after his return from Pakistan.
2.2 Date(s) of the final test report(s) of the said officer. 2.3 And other related information.
3. With reference to Pathankot Enquiry (and/or Investigation) Report 3.1 Whether the IAF Enquiry Report of the so called terror attack on the Pathankot airbase has been marked and/or classified as secret? If yes, then provide the name of the statute and section vide which the secrecy endorsement and/or classification has been made 3.2 Provide the number of pages in the said enquiry report. 3.3 And other related information.
4. And various other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeals The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant has withdrawn case no. 660906 by sending some submissions in writing to the Commission and pressed for information in respect of case no. 660632. He also reiterated his written submissions dated 27.02.2023. He contested the transfer of the RTI application done by the CPIO after 95 days 2 and the delay in submitting a reply to him. He also submitted that dates, number of pages and such like information should be given as there is nothing confidential or personal in these point.
The CPIO reiterated the written submissions dated 27.02.2023. On a query, the CPIO HQ submitted that the application was received on 01.09.2021 and as information was not available with them the same was transferred partially. He pointed out that the whole application was not transferred.
The CPIO WAC reiterated the written submissions dated 15.02.2023 and submitted that medical records of third parties were rightly denied vide letter dated 23.12.2021 which was as per the RTI Act.
The appellant submitted that he had not received the letter dated 23.12.2021 and a copy of the written submissions dated 15.02.2023. Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO had provided a suitable reply and all and sundry information asked for by the appellant could not be compiled and therefore it was rightly informed that the information sought was voluminous, the disclosure of which shall amount to disproportionate diversion of resources. The denial of other information sought has also been correctly done as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The limited information given on para 4.2 was as per record, furthermore, as per record, the CPIO 2 also had replied on 23.12.2021.
The Commission noted that the appellant is clearly misusing the RTI Act and is seeking all and sundry information which are voluminous and a burden on the public authority which in fact lacks public interest too. In this regard, it is noteworthy to recall the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in its decision dated 21.09.2021 in the matter of La Fin Financial Services Private Ltd vs Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd while deciding a frivolous application by a plaintiff had observed as under:
"19. Because this is clearly a vexatious and mischievous proceeding that has unnecessarily wasted the Court's time, I can think of no reason to withhold an order of costs against the Plaintiffs. The quantum of costs cannot be trivial. Amended Section 35 clearly intends the power of ordering costs to be used as a deterrent to prevent parties from making such frivolous 3 applications. It would be meaningless to order a paltry amount.
Plaintiffs such as this one will understand that Courts are not playgrounds, and litigation is not a pastime.
20. There will, therefore, be an order of costs against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant to be paid within two weeks from today in the amount of Rs.25 lakhs. If not paid in that time, the costs will carry interest at 9% per annum, and the Defendant is entitled to put this order into execution against the Plaintiff for recovery of these costs. "
Decision:
In view of the above discussion, the appellant is advised to refrain from filing such vexatious RTI applications on all and sundry subject matters which amounts to harassment of the public authority.
Be that as it may, the CPIO WAC shall send a copy of the reply dated 23.12.2021 alongwith the despatch details and the written submissions dated 15.02.2023. The CPIO Air HQ shall send a copy of the written submissions dated 27.02.2023 to the appellant. The documents as mentioned shall be sent to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4