Central Information Commission
Mr Soumitra Sen vs Ministry Of Coal on 21 January, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/002072-YA
Date of Hearing : 21.01.2015
Date of Decision : 21.01.2015
Appellant : Shri Soumitra Sen,
Pune
Respondent : Northern Coalfields Ltd.
Singrauli
Coal India Ltd.
Kolkata
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant Facts emerging from appeal :
RTI Application filed on : 14.09.2012
PIO replied on : 17.11.2012
First Appeal filed on : 30.03.2013
First Appellate Authority order on : 11.07.2013
Second Appeal before CIC received on : 13.08.2013
Information sought:
The appellant sought information relating to gross/net salary, form-16, and property acquired/sold etc. for Shri S.K. Dutta Mazumdar, CGM, at Coal India Ltd. Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Appellant submitted that the present case was heard by the Commission in second appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000658-YA in which the Commission upheld the view of the CPIO to deny information sought on point No.3 & 4 under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He raised the same argument as in the second appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000658-YA and requested for disclosure of the information.
Decision After hearing the respondent and on perusal of record, the Commission finds that the appellant filed second appeal in duplicate against the same RTI application dated 14.09.2012. The matter is covered under res judicata.
An earlier order by a Coordinate Bench of this Commission in second appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001046SA, discussed the issue of res judicata as under -
"...
Res judicata = already decided
14. The Commission noticed that some of the applicants are filing photocopies of RTI requests with the same public authorities time and again seeking information, irrespective of the fact that previous application reached second appeal level and information was furnished or refused as decided by the wisdom of authorities. When not taken to High Court for judicial review, the matter assumes finality and cannot be sought for again from the PIO. 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 has to be rejected with an emphasis. 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 the PIOs, First Appellate Authorities and the Commissions allow repeated RTI applications, there will be no end to the information litigation and the public authorities would be continuously taxed for no fault of them. Appeal as provided by law is allowed, though it appears like re-litigating, because it is review and an opportunity to challenge the order on reasonable and legal grounds. Filing same or slightly modified application for information which was decided, is against the principles of natural justice pertaining to procedure.
15. The Civil Justice principles also recognized 'constructive res judicata' which means when an applicant availed opportunity of obtaining information on a particular subject, he is expected to seek all the related information in that opportunity itself. He cannot file another application for a bit or piece which he forgot to ask, or not advised by his lawyer to ask, or thought he should postpone it for other purposes. He should ask all possible aspects of information about that subject matter, once and for all. If he does not, it is assumed that he asked for that and was refused properly. This is incorporated in principles of civil procedural justice and practiced universally. It is in the public interest and also to further objectives of Right to Information Act, that such repeated or unending stream of questions being sought from same or different public authorities to be stopped.
16. The Commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority, and based on the information received, file a bunch of RTI questions from the same or other wings of same public authority, or from other authority and the harassment continues without an end. Even the PIO of Central Information Commission is flooded with such repeated questions from thousands angles by one person running into hundreds of RTI applications. As the PIOs went 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 are growing.
IC MM Ansari's observations
17. In Prem Prakash Kumar v NFL, Panipat, (Decision no. 246/IC/(A)/2006, F.No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00374 & 375 dated 28 August 2006) the appellant sought documents and specific comments of CPIO on 89 queries. The Learned Commissioner Shri M M Ansari observed that in fact, 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.
IC AN Tiwari's observations
18. In Shri Gopal Soni v The New India Assurance Company Ltd (F No CIC/AT/A2008/00097, 000116, 000124, dated 12.6.2008) Learned Commissioner Shri A. N. Tiwar dealt with similar problem. The respondents above submitted that the appellant, their employee, was suspended for insubordination and misconduct, and ever since he directed a spate of applications containing queries for detailed, voluminous but inane information which would have to be collected and collated from over 30 branches. The Commission held in this case: answering the elaborate and detailed queries, which have to be both accurate and authentic, imposes heavy cost on the public authority and tends to divert its resources, which brings it within the scope of section 7(9) of RTI Act.
19. In Sh K. Lall v Sh M K Bagri, Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO, F No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112, the Learned Central Information Commissioner Sri A N Tiwari observed: ...it would mean that once certain information is placed in public domain accessible to the citizens either freely or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control' of the public authority and thus would cease to be an 'information' accessible under the RTI Act."
20. Emphasis is that once the information is accessible or available, no requests for the same shall be entertained. In a limited extent it avoids repetition. This can be extended further to say once applicant procured the information sought, the information is no more 'held' by public authority or 'under its control' as far as that applicant is concerned, and thus the public authority need not answer.
IC Shailesh Gandhi's observations
21. It is relevant here to quote a paragraph from the order of Learned Information Commissioner Sri Shailesh Gandhi in case numbers.... Dated....in a second appeal between....... : 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.
22. In the above case the Commissioner Sri Shailesh Gandhi observed that appellant was using RTI Act as a litigation tool, his use of RTI was vexatious in nature, and held that entertaining such appeal could no longer serve the objectives of the RTI Act and at one go the Commissioner had disposed off all the pending appeals.
No scope for repeating under RTI Act
23. Though RTI Act, did not specifically provide this as a ground of refusing the information, it is implied from the various provisions of RTI Act, that any citizen has right to information only once and not repeatedly.
.
. xxx xxx xxx .
Cases of disclosure of information to the repetitive applicants for their private purpose which promotes their private interest but not the public interest, would cause substantial harm to the legitimate aim of the Right to Information Act.
26. Once information is given, applicant shall not seek the same once again. If the applicant seeks information again and again, the PIO, the First Appellate Authority and the Commission would be forced to spend their time on this repeated application, and in the process the authorities would lose that much time to address the other RTI applications or performing their general duties in their public office. Repeated RTI application amounts to clogging the office of public authority and CPIO would be right in refusing the same with intimation. Because the Repeated RTI application has an effect of clogging the public offices, it would amount to obstructing the free flow of information to deserving and genuine RTI applicants, besides preventing the officers from performing their general duties attached to their office....."
The ratio of the above cited decision squarely applies to the case in hand. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar