Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Ordnance Factory Board on 11 March, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/OFBKO/C/2018/609547/SD
Varun Krishna .... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ordnance Factory Nalanda,
Distt - Rajgir,
Bihar - 803121. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 18/08/2017
CPIO replied on : No reply
First appeal filed on : 09/10/2017
First Appellate Authority order : No order
Complaint dated : 13/01/2018
Date of Hearing : 05/03/2019
Date of Decision : 05/03/2019
Information sought:
The Complainant sought information through 7 points regarding daily progress report as well as action taken on his email representation dated 03.08.2017 and its reminder dated 16.08.2017 addressed to GM - Ordnance Factory Nalanda.
Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided any reply on the RTI Application.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Represented by Jitender Kumar in person.1
Respondent: Sudhanshu Prasad, DGM & CPIO, Ordnance Factory Nalanda, Distt - Rajgir, Bihar present through VC.
CPIO submitted that the instant RTI Application pertained to the subject matter of Invoice No.01 dated 01.04.2017 based on which information was provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 27.07.2017 in response to an earlier RTI Application dated 23.06.2017. He further submitted that the Complainant extracted the information provided at para 8 of the reply dated 27.07.2017 and addressed a letter/email dated 03.08.2017 to General Manager/Ordnance Factory, Nalanda seeking payment of interest of Rs. 5.95 lakh under MSME Act for his alleged delayed payment. That, subsequently, Complainant sent a reminder email dated 16.08.2017 and later the instant RTI Application. That, since information pertaining to the above mentioned invoice number had been provided and considering the spate of RTI Applications of the Complainant, no separate reply was provided on the instant RTI Application.
CPIO further wanted to bring the attention of the bench to the repetitive nature of the RTI Applications being filed by the Complainant. It was submitted that the Complainant is a supplier of Ordnance Factory, Nalanda and despite the payments made to his firm as per terms and conditions of the respective contracts; Complainant has got into a habit of airing his grievances through a number of RTI Applications. CPIO expressed his anguish over the humiliating mannerisms of the Complainant displayed in pursuance of his RTI Applications and that he ridicules the CPIO and goes to the extent of making incessant phone calls to the office. CPIO pointed out that the Complainant has a set of cyclostyled questionnaire which he keeps filing with reference to different invoice numbers. CPIO urged the Commission to look into the menace created by the Complainant and sought guidance in similar cases in future as it was alleged that responding to Complainant's RTI Applications costs them disproportionate diversion of man hours of factory work.
Decision Commission based on earlier Appeals/Complaints of the Complainant as well as 9 other cases being heard simultaneously today observes that the CPIO is right in pointing out that Complainant is in a habit of filing multiple RTI Applications seeking similar information. A bare perusal of these case records suggests that Complainant has resorted to the channel of RTI Act to merely address issues related to contracts/works executed by his firm. Presumably, this spree of filing 2 File No : CIC/OFBKO/C/2018/609547/SD RTI Applications is to pressurize the public authorities into settling his varied grievances which amounts to a gross misuse of RTI Act. This bench of the Commission has alone dealt with a dozen cases of the Complainant filed on similar subject matters with different public authorities. The broad heads of subject matter include aspects of tender processes; rejection of material; work execution and payments thereof related information.
In the aforesaid context, Commission does not find any malafide intention on the part of the CPIO to have not provided a reply on the instant RTI Application. Nonetheless, CPIO is warned to exercise due caution that by virtue of the statutory duty cast upon him by RTI Act, he is bound to provide a reply on each RTI Application in future.
Now, adverting to the aforesaid observations of the Commission, it appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality. However, adverting to cases such as this where the intention of the RTI Applicant is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that it is to only pester the public authorities; the notion of misuse of RTI Act well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments is relevant such as the 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 3 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 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."4
File No : CIC/OFBKO/C/2018/609547/SD A more lucid 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."
The aforesaid dicta essentially proves that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized bane and citizens such as the Complainant should take note that their right to information is not afterall absolute. Keeping this in view, Commission advises the Complainant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future. CPIO is also advised to deal with any future RTI Applications of the Complainant on subject matters emanating from the above discussed grievances in accordance with the aforesaid observations of the Commission.
The Complaint is dismissed.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
5
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
6