Central Information Commission
Mr.Nagendra Singh vs Ministry Of Defence on 26 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/00255
Appellant Shri Nagendra Singh
Public Authority Indian Army.
Date of hearing 26.7.2010
Date of decision 26.7.2010
Facts :-
The matter is called for hearing today dated 26.7.2010. Appellant not present. The Public Authority is represented by Col. A.K. Vyas and Lt. Col. P. John Bosco.
2. The appellant has sent a written representation dated 21.7.2010, the operative para whereof is reproduced below :-
"1. That I have not been provided with the ground by the commission as yet on the basis of which the order dated 04.02.2009 passed by Hon'ble Commissioner Sri S.N. Mishra was declared complied.
2. That the ground (of compliance of order dated 04.02.2009) is a must as it is the basis for the case and it directly concerns with the hearing scheduled on 26.07.2010. And without this ground I am rendered clueless before the commission on 26.07.2010 at the time of hearing.
3. That my complaints (under reference iii & iv) which was E-mailed and Faxed followed by speed post have yet not been put up before the Hon'ble Commissioner. Without the appraisal of these complaints (under reference iii & iv) by the Hon'ble Commissioner no deliberation is possible. And without the relevant reply from the commission in response to my complaint letters it is neither practical nor legal for me to appear before the commission for hearing on 26.07.2010.
4. That the legality, veracity and practicability of hearing without supplying the relevant documents (the ground of compliance of order dated 04.02.2009) to the complainant rendering it equivocal, hence detrimental."
3. This compels the Commission to go into the background of the matter. It is the submission of Lt. Col. P. John Bosco that the appellant had applied for Recruitment of Religious Teacher (RRT)-30. He, however, was disqualified on medical grounds. He, again, applied for RRT-32 but his candidature was erroneously rejected by the concerned Recruiting Officer on the ground for his not being educationally qualified for the course. However, when this error came to the notice of the concerned authorities, they permitted him to appear in RRT- 35, despite the fact that, in the meanwhile, he had become overage, but, unfortunately he did not qualify for the course.
4. In this connection, he had filed a complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/000701- SM which was decided by this Commission vide order dated 4.2.2009 wherein the following order was passed :-
"We, therefore, direct the CPIO concerned to provide him with a copy of the relevant Ministry of Defence or Army Headquarters circular, invoked in the year 1999, laying down the equivalence of certificates issued by private and voluntary educational institutions like the Hindi Vidya Peeth within 10 working days from the receipt of this office order."
5. It is the submission of Col. Vyas that the order of the Commission was duly complied with. Col. Vyas also submits that subsequent thereto, the appellant had filed another complaint relating to the same issue which was registered vide complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00037-SM wherein he had complained regarding non-supply of certain documents to him. The complaint was duly heard by Shri S.N. Mishra, Information Commissioner and in the order dated 30.7.2009 he gave the following finding :-
"The situation in brief is that the respondent claims to have destroyed the records as per the retention schedule and the desired information is no longer available. Therefore, we are afraid we can't be of any help to the appellant. The case is closed."
6. It may also be apt to mention that Shri S.N. Mishra, Information Commissioner, had recorded a note dated 20.8.2009 in the file ordering the closure of the matter. This was duly conveyed to the appellant vide this Commission's letter dated 25.6.2010.
7. The present appeal is nothing but a rehash of the matter which has been earlier decided by the Commission.
8. We now take up the RTI application dated 1.4.2009 filed by the appellant which is the subject matter of the present case wherein he had sought copies of the following documents :-
"(i) Photo copy of complaint by Shri Nagendra Singh against rejection of application for screening for Rect. Of JCO(RT) RRT-32 course (as mentioned in the letter NO> 4096/32/D dt. 14 Oct. 2000 sent by Col.
Y.M. Aggrawal Offg. DDG. HQ. Rtg. Zone Danapur Cantt to Addl. Dte. Gen. of Rtg/Rtg/5 (OR)(D).
(ii) Photocopy of Army H.Q. letter No. A/64205/RT/Rtg 5 (OR)(D) dt. 09 Oct. 2000 (as mentioned in the letter NO. 4096/32/D dt. 14 Oct sent by Col. Y.M. Aggrawal offg. DDG. HQ Rtg. Zone Danapur Cantt to Addl. Dte. Gen. of Rtg/Rtg/5 (OR) (D).
(iii) Photocopy of Army H.QA. letter No. 62533/Rtg. 5 (OR)(A) dt. 04 July 2000(as mentioned in the letter NO> 4096/32/D dt. 14 Oct. 2000 sent by Col. Y.M. Aggrawal Offg. DDG. HQ. Rtg. Zone Danapur Cantt to Addl. Dte. Gen. of Rtg/Rtg/5 (OR)(D).
(iv) Photocopy of the letter sent from Addl. Dte. Gen. of Rtg/Rtg 5 (OR) (D) to HQ. Rtg. Zone Danapur Cantt. in response to letter No. 4096/32/D dt. 14 Oct. 2000."
9. It is the submission of Col. Vyas that this RTI application is nothing but rehash of the earlier RTI applications/appeals filed by the appellant which have already been disposed of by this Commission, as narrated herein-above. He, in particular, submits that the requested documents were weeded out as per prevailing rules and this was duly conveyed to the appellant vide their letter dated 13.5.2009. Besides, under the instructions of the First Appellate Authority, destruction proof has also been supplied to the appellant vide their letter dated 8.9.2009. It is, thus, Col. Vyas's submission that the appellant is repeatedly filing RTI applications/appeals one after another, thereby causing harassment to the Public Authority, resulting in diversion of his resources.
10. The matter, however, does not end here. The staff of this Commission informs us that the appellant and his wife have been repeatedly ringing up the Commission's Registery with an intent to overbear them.
DECISION
11. I have carefully gone through the representation dated 21.7.2010 extracted herein above wherein he has questioned the legality of the present hearing without supplying him the relevant documents. It needs to be recalled that whatever documents were available with the Public Authority, have already been provided to him. The rest of the documents could not be supplied as these were reportedly weeded out. In this view of the matter, my predecessor had decided to close the matter. I have no reason to think otherwise. The appellant's unending correspondence with the Commission, including his telephonic calls to the Commission's Registry, are viewed adversely. The matter stands closed at the Commission's end.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central 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.
( K.L. Das ) Assistant Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The CPIO, RTI Cell, ADG AE G-6, D-1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, Gate No.4, IHQ of MoD(Army), New Delhi-110011.
2. Shri Nagendra Singh, Vill : Makhdumpur, PO : Pachrukhiya(Kalan), Via : Naya Mohamadpur, Distt. Bhojpur, Bihar, PIN : 802163.