Central Information Commission
Amar Kumar Jha vs Ministry Of Defence on 5 February, 2018
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx Hkou
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BHAWAN
ckck xaxukFk ekxZ] eqfujdk
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
ubZ fnYyh-110067
Tel: +911126106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
File Nos. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/189009/SD
+CIC/IARMY/A/2017/188258/SD
+ CIC/IARMY/A/2017/188249/SD
+ CIC/IARMY/A/2017/188259/SD
+ CIC/SD/A/2016/000178/SD
Date of Hearing: 31/01/2018
Date of Decision:02/02/2018
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Amar Kumar Jha
Respondent : CPIO,
(s) RTI Cell, ADG MT(AE),
G - 6, D - 1 Wing,
Sena Bhawan, Gate No. - 04,
IHQ of MoD(Army),
New Delhi.
CPIO,
HQ, 3 CORPS,
C/o 99 APO,
PIN - 905803.
CPIO,
HQ 36 Infantry Division,
Pin - 908436,
C/o 56 APO.
CPIO,
12 RAPID, PIN - 908412,
C/o 56 APO.
1
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army
RTI : 21/03/2016 18/07/2016 25/05/2016 22/03/2016 16/05/2015
application
filed on
PIO replied : 27/05/2016 12/08/201 23/06/2016 12/05/2016 29/06/2015;
on 6 and & 18/12/2015;
10/09/201 02/07/2016 11/01/2016
6 &
25/04/2016
First appeal : 05/07/2016 16/09/201 05/07/2016 25/05/2016 22/07/2015;
filed on 6 11/03/2016
First : No order No order 30/07/2016 No order No order
Appellate
Authority
order
Second : 19/11/2016 20/11/201 20/11/2016 20/11/2016 25/05/2016
Appeal 6
dated
Information sought:
File No. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/189009/SD The Appellant sought to know the particulars of dak dispatch of transfer notes of his 10 RTI Applications filed in the year 2016.
File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/188258/SD The Appellant sought certified true copies of the documents related to action taken on his various applications submitted to HQ 3 Corps during all of his service tenure.
File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/188249/SD The Appellant sought to know the name and details of the Account head under which demand draft or Indian Postal Orders can be drawn for filing RTI Applications with the respondent office; details of the amount of funds received from govt. by Respondent office in past 19 years.
File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/188259/SD The Appellant sought information regarding action taken on letter no. 518/sigs/Accts/LTC dated 25.10.2015 and also the action taken on all letters mentioned in the said letter.
File No. : CIC/SD/A/2016/000178/SD 2 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army The Appellant sought permission to inspect of his service file; certain allowance payment files; ration and fresh issue register as well as leaves and general application register.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
File Nos. Respondent(s)
CIC/IARMY/A/2017/189009/SD Col. R. Balaji, Director (RTI Cell) &
CPIO, IHQ of MoD(Army) present in
person.
CIC/IARMY/A/2017/188258/SD Col Rajesh Benda, Col GS(Edn) & CPIO,
HQ 3 Corps C/o 99 APO present in
person.
CIC/IARMY/A/2017/188249/SD Lt Col Mayank Nagpal, Rep. of CPIO,
HQ 36 Infantry Division,
Pin - 908436, C/o 56 APO present in
person.
CIC/IARMY/A/2017/188259/SD Maj Ashish Dwivedi, Officer
Commanding, Communication & Rep.
of CPIO, HQ 12 Rapid (Edn Br),PIN -
908412, C/o 56 APO present in
person.
CIC/SD/A/2016/000178/SD Maj Ashish Dwivedi, Officer
Commanding, Communication & Rep.
of CPIO, HQ 12 Rapid (Edn Br),PIN -
908412, C/o 56 APO present in
person.
Submission of Respondents:
Respondent No.1 submitted that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications on the same subject matter and this includes multiple applications filed on the same date, and that for such reasons the said applications could 3 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army not be identified by their Cell upon the receipt of the request for information in the instant matter. The Appellant was accordingly requested to forward additional details in terms of RTI case number for tracing the reference in order to provide the relevant information. He further submitted that inspite of several reminders; Appellant did not respond to the request till date and instead preferred First Appeal. He furthermore contended that Appellant has been causing immense detriment to the resources of the public authority by his continuous filing of RTI Applications and First Appeals. He also drew the attention of this bench to the previous orders passed against the Appellant remarking on the inane nature of RTI Applications filed by him.
Respondent No.2 submitted their written submissions wherein it has been stated that the information sought in the instant RTI Application was vague and did not qualify to be called as information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. That, the Appellant was informed on same lines on 12.08.2016. It is further stated that the demand draft attached with the RTI Application was an expired one, on account of which a fresh DD/postal order was sought from the Appellant. That, when Appellant did not respond on the same, PIO processed the RTI Application without waiting for the fees thus making expense for the same out of the government exchequer. Later, Appellant filed a First Appeal, upon examination of the same it was observed that information sought in the First Appeal was not the same as sought in the RTI Application, hence Appellant was requested vide FAA's order dated 16.11.2016 to file appropriate first appeal. It is asserted that the PIO and FAA not only entertained the appellant's application but also sought clarification for provisioning of information in a time bound manner. Further, attention of the Commission has been brought towards a decision dated 22.05.2017 in File No. CIC/RK/A/2016/001097/SD wherein this bench has advised the Appellant to not misuse the provisions of RTI Act. It is submitted in this light that Appellant has filed repeated appeals on frivolous grounds causing loss to the government exchequer.
Respondent No.4 presented his written submissions for both matters pertaining to their office, wherein it has been stated that Appellant has filed Second Appeals even for those information which have been already provided by CPIO and FAA. That, Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications before the PIO in various Singal units and its affiliated formation headquarters on frivolous grounds. Further, stating that mostly Appellant files RTI Applications on similar issues i.e regarding progress/action taken on his application which are associated to his service related personal grievances and other administrative information related to units and formation Headquarters. That, 4 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army being a serving soldier in Indian Army, Appellant is aware of the channel of working followed in Indian Army and its routine procedure for dealing with grievances. It is also pointed out that Appellant has been given access to unit documents as desired, however inspite of all this and even signing all the documents upon perusal; he has raised the issue at this stage. That, their unit has been cooperating enough and have gone the extra mile to satisfy the demand for information of even such nature which have no concern to the Appellant, whatsoever. It is requested that Appellant may be directed to refrain from such activities and to restrict him from filing further RTI Applications.
Observations Commission has taken into consideration the submissions of the CPIOs.
In the instant set of Appeals, it has been observed that appropriate reply has been provided on the RTI Application by the concerned CPIO's leaving no scope for intervention of the Commission.
Commission has clubbed the above mentioned Appeals for decision as the Appellant has been filing multiple RTI Applications with several public authorities under the Ministry of Defence. Second Appeals corresponding to these RTI Application have also been heard aplenty by this bench. The common feature in most of these Appeals is seeking information regarding action taken on his correspondences; dak dispatch details; questioning the various actions of public authorities. There has been consistent record of adverse remarks made by this bench for the Appellant's apparent misuse of the RTI Act to garner some sort of relief in his service related grievances. It is also imperative to note that Appellant also has a number of RTI Applications and Appeals filed on behalf of him through his wife Munni Jha seeking the same kind of information as him.
Some of these matters are reproduced hereunder:
In File No. CIC/SD/A/2016/000212 decided on 15/06/2017 it was held:
''Commission expresses displeasure over the delay in providing the information on the RTI Application by Respondent No.2. However, in view of the multiple Appeals of the Appellant heard and decided earlier, Commission finds merit in the submission of Respondent No.1, as the Appellant clearly 5 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army appears to be a disgruntled employee trying to harass the public authorities by filing inane RTI Applications and corresponding Second Appeals. Commission takes grave exception of the Appellant's conduct and advises him to not misuse the provisions of RTI Act for settling personal scores.'' In File No. CIC/RK/A/2016/001097/SD decided on 22/05/2017 it was held:
"The Appellant is hereby advised to desist from misusing the provisions of RTI Act as well as from wasting the time of the Commission and the public authorities. The repetitive filing of Appeals without any merit may compel the Commission to reject any further Appeals or Complaints filed by the Appellant.'' In File No. CIC/RK/A/2016/001103/SD decided on 10/01/2017 it was held:
''Commission observes from the perusal of the RTI Application that the same is largely outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has raised hypothetical queries. Further, it may also be noted that the Appellant is pursuing a grievance through multiple RTI Applications and Second Appeals, and the fact that he has been provided an inspection of all relevant records leaves no further scope for the Commission to interfere with the response of the CPIO.'' In File No. CIC/RK/A/2016/001098/SD decided on 10/01/2017 it was held:
"Commission observes that the Appellant is pursuing a grievance through multiple RTI Applications and Second Appeals, and the fact that he has been provided an inspection of all relevant records leaves no further scope for the Commission to interfere with the response of the CPIO."
In File No. CIC/SD/A/2016/000061 decided on 06/01/2017 it was held:
''Commission observes that the Appellant is of the habit of submitting multiple RTI Applications in his and his wife's (Munni Jha) name to address grievance related issues for which other forums in the department already exist. RTI Act should not be abused for settlement of grievances.'' In File No. CIC/CC/A/2016/000946/SD decided on 22/05/2017 it was held:
''In view of the foregoing observations, Commission advices the Appellant to desist from misusing the provisions of RTI Act and wasting the time of the Commission and the public authorities. The repetitive filing of 6 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army Appeals without any merit may compel the Commission to reject any further Appeals or Complaints filed by the Appellant.'' In view of the aforesaid observation(s) in various orders concerning the RTI Applications filed by the Appellant seeking information on repetitive matters, Commission strongly denounces this approach resulting in misusing the channel of RTI Act. The Appellant appears to be doing so despite the express knowledge of the fact that he is pursuing a matter of no larger public interest, rather concerning only his perceived personal grievance. It is appalling to note that the public authority is being unabashedly harassed by filing umpteen vexatious RTI Applications. It is also not clear as to what kind of information will satisfy the Appellant as it appears he is merely intending to compel the public authorities into addressing his grievances. This being the ulterior motive is manifest from the bare perusal of the queries of these RTI Applications.
The larger issue then here is the repetitive nature of these RTI Applications and the motivated attempt at putting the public authority as well as the Commission to test. To highlight this larger issue, it is imperative to refer to certain observations of the Commission in this regard. Some of these being:
File No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326SA decided on 25.06.2014 ".....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 can be denied. 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 presumed that the PIOs, First Appellate Authorities and the Commissions are statutorily compelled to entertain the repeated RTI applications, information litigation and woes of public authorities would never end. An Appeal, as provided by law is legal, because it is a legal opportunity to challenge the order on reasonable and legal grounds. Engaging with the application which is same or slightly modified request for information which was responded earlier will be certainly against the principles of natural justice- both procedural and substantive, as far as right to information is concerned."7
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army ".....The Commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority, and based on the responses 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 PIOs go 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."
File No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00374 & 375 decided on 28.08.2006 "....the nature of queries and the information sought are such that the information seeker would never be satisfied because the promotion of self interest, rather than public interest, was dominant, as the appellant had sought redressal of grievances."
File Nos.
CIC/SG/C/2011/000760,CIC/SM/A/2011/000926/SG,CIC/SM/A/2011/0 01111/SG,CIC/SG/A/201 1/002909 decided on 17.10.2012 "....The Commission, at several appellate hearings, has explained to the complainant that under RTI Act, only the information as per records can be made available; multiple RTI applications and appeals would not provide him any information beyond the records that exists. The Commission recognizes the fact that valuable time of the complainant, respondent-public authority as well as the Commission is being spent in merely going through the motions prescribed under the RTI Act again and again to obtain similar information. .... At this juncture the Commission would like to mention that though the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used indiscriminately to fulfill the demands of one individual. In the present matter, it must be noted that the Complainant is pursuing multiple litigation and various public authorities are being asked to divert an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of resources just to respond to hundreds of RTI applications filed by him. ...The Commission is also conscious of the fact that it is financed by the poorest man in this country who may be starving to death. The complainant by repeatedly filing similar RTI applications and appeals with the respondent public authority and the Commission, is wasting public resources"8
Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army The foregoing stance can be more so exemplified in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). 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."
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 9 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army 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."
A more cogent rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of Shail Sahni 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."
[Emphasis supplied in all the above citations] DECISION Commission believes it will suffice to say, a composite reading of the preceding paragraphs lends only one conclusion that the present set of Appeals are largely devoid of any merit as CPIOs have addressed the queries in the letter and spirit of RTI Act. The public authorities have spent considerable time and 10 Amar Kumar Jha vs. Indian Army resources in responding to the RTI Applications. Moreover, it is deemed appropriate that the Commission as well as the public authority are at liberty to take recourse to the rationale of this order in any of the future RTI Applications and/or Appeals of the Appellant where it is established that information sought is premised on the same subject matters which have been addressed earlier. The Appellant is further advised to not cause a mockery of the spirit of the RTI Act by unnecessarily flooding the public authority with RTI Applications on the same matter involving no larger public interest. It is abundantly made clear that any number of RTI Applications on the same issue will not alter the information that was held and parted with by the Respondents.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 11