Central Information Commission
Brij Krishan Sharma vs Directorate General Of Employment on 28 March, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DGEAT/A/2024/115865
Shri Brij Krishan Sharma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Directorate General of Employment
Date of Hearing : 25.03.2025
Date of Decision : 25.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.02.2024
PIO replied on : 11.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 12.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : April 2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 21.05.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.02.2024 seeking information on following points:-
A. Provide scanned copies of the following all the posts sanctioned strengts in HQ and all NCSC DA Centres.
1. Director
2. Joint Director
3. Deputy Director
4. Assistant Director
5. Psychologist
6. Rehabilitation Officer
7. Workshop Foreman
8. Training Coordinator
9. Workshop Supervisor
10. Office Superintendent
11. Vocational Instructors
12. Career Assistant
13. Upper Division Clerk
14. Lower Clerk 15 Stenographer
16. Driver
17. MTS 18 Rehabilitation counsellors
19. Workshop Attendants Page 1 B. All Public Information Officers should provide scanned copies of all the posts that have been abolished till January 31st 2024 from the sanctioned strength at number A. C. All Public Information Officers should provide scanned copies of the posts remaining in the strength on 31 January 2024 after the omitted posts at number B."
The CPIO, Directorate General of Employment, New Delhi vide letter dated 08.03.2024 replied as under:-
SI. No.1:- As per Annexure-I SI. No.2:- As per Annexure-II SI. No. 3:- As per Annexure-I."
The CPIO, Directorate General of Employment, New Delhi vide letter dated 11.03.2024 replied as under:-
Point No. A:- The posts for which Admn.-I of Directorate General of Employment is the Cadre Controlling Authority.
Name of the Pay Level Sanctioned Strength
posts
Staff car Driver Level - 1 02
MTS Level - 1 26
Point No. B:- Nil in respect of Admn.-I Section of DGE. Point No. C:- Nil."
The CPIO, Directorate General of Employment, New Delhi vide letter dated 11.03.2024 replied as under:
Please refer to your online RTI application having registration No. DGEAT/R/E/24/00041 dated 17-02-2024 under RTI Act, 2005 in respect of Shri Brij Krishan Sharma resident of 391. Rajat Grah Colony, Nainwan Road, Bundi- Rajasthan regarding sanctioned strength of posts in Hqrs, and all NCSCs for DA. The requisite information in respect of EE-II Section, DGE is given below:
1. As per Annexure-1
2. As per Annexure-II
3. As per Annexure-1 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated April 2024 stated as under:-
2. "The undersigned as First Appellate Authority has gone through the grounds of appeal and has further inquired into the matter and CPIO DGE, Hqrs. (B.K., US/CPIO) are directed to provide the requisite information to the applicant within 15 days from the issue of this letter."
Page 2 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Brajesh Kumar, US, CPIO and Mr. Rajmoni, Dy. Director, DGE - participated in the hearing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant. They further stated that the Appellant is an ex-employee of the Respondent public authority who has filed as many as 780 RTI applications, seeking frivolous random information, repeatedly. They stated that Appellant is a habitual RTI Applicant and files RTI Applications to harass the Respondent Public Authority by clogging their working system. They averred that answering the humungous number of RTI Applications has substantially impacted the work force, diverting human resources and other public resources of the public authority.
Decision:
1. Perusal of records of the case reveals that the information available on record with the respective public authorities which qualifies as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant.
2. In the light of the large number of cases filed by the Appellant and the factual premise of the cases, the Commission finds it worthwhile to mention a similar case wherein this Commission in its decision no.
CIC/YA/A/2014/001071, 001123, 001210 while disposing of a batch of fifteen matters of one Sh. M Danasegar dated 30.06.2015 had held as follows:
"......The Commission finds this case to be a classic instance of blatant misuse of RTI Act by the appellant, who is a disgruntled employee of the same organisation, through relentlessly filing of a series of RTI applications to harass officials of a public authority. The information sought in most of his RTI applications has no public interest at all and veers around the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. In the process of seeking the same, the appellant has resorted to reckless data mining on a humongous scale. Still, information has been provided by the respondent authorities as per record on some points and the rest denied for the reason that it is either voluminous or not available or relates to clarification/interpretation. The appellant, motivated by personal interest, has clearly sought such information with the vengeful motive to harass the officers through a flurry of RTI applications. The RTI Act cannot be allowed to be misused or abused and to become a tool of oppression or for intimidation of officials striving to do their duty. ..."
Emphasis supplied Page 3
3. The Commission in its aforesaid decision placed reliance on the following Apex Court decision regarding vexatious and frivolous petitions. The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries(AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ...."
4. The Apex Court had discussed the issue of wasteful vexatious litigation in great detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied
5. Vexatious litigation and misuse of RTI Act has been discussed in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] wherein it has been held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the Page 4 dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....."
Emphasis supplied
6. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed that:
"........Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse toexer cise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. 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 beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied
7. 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, vide its order dated 08.10.2015 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..."
The aforesaid observation essentially proves that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized problem and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not absolute.
8. Considering the adverse impact of unmanageable amount of queries, the Apex Court in a vital decision The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336) has categorically cautioned thus:
"...The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. ... The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well-informed democracy is transparency. However it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 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 government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use.."
Emphasis supplied Page 5
9. In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interest. ...................................
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............................. 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..."
Emphasis supplied
10. It is also important to note that this Bench has in the past decided a batch of 26 cases filed by the same Appellant, upon hearing the appeals on 29.01.2025, whereby the Appellant was categorically advised thus:
".. In view of the settled position as enunciated in the above decisions and the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that undoubtedly the modus operandi of filing such large number of irrelevant and unrelated RTI applications is neither proper nor acceptable. Hence, the Appellant is advised to refrain from misusing the RTI Act to resolve any personal grudges.
Page 6 In the light of the aforementioned discussion and in view of the fact that response sent by the PIOs is found legally appropriate, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)