Central Information Commission
S G Rajan vs Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Chandigarh ... on 17 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCCEC/A/2023/652335
S G Rajan .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Pr. Commissioner, CGST
& Central Excise Commissionerate,
Chandigarh, C R Building, Sector 17-C,
Chandigarh - 160017 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.12.2024
Date of Decision : 17.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.08.2023
CPIO replied on : 19.10.2023
First appeal filed on : 08.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.10.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.11.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 27.08.2023 seeking the
following information:
"Kindly provide me the following information/documents in connection
with the order dated 02/05/2011 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC/7278/2011, upholding the order of
Hon. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in OA no. 156-JK-2009
Page 1 of 7
dt. 19.01.2010 in the case of Shri. Ashok Kumar vs Union of India &
others, pursuant to which pay of senior officer i.e. Sh. Ashok Kumar was
stepped up at par with junior officer viz Shri. Ramesh Sharma.
a. Number of Original Applications (OAs) or Representations, if any, filed
before Hon CAT, Chandigarh or with the Department by the officers
claiming to be similarly placed and requesting to extend the benefit, of
above referred Hon SC order. The names of such officers may also please
be furnished.
b. Out of Sr. No. (a) above, number and date of order(s), if any, in which
Hon. Tribunal has allowed the stepping up of pay in terms of above
referred Hon SC order, Names of officers to whom such benefits
extended, consequently, may also please be furnished.
c. Number(s) of representations received from officers, claiming to be
similarly placed and requesting to extend the benefit of SC order, out of
the (a) above, which were rejected. The basis of such rejection may also
be informed.
d. Details of Appeal filed, if any, against the order(s) of Hon. Tribunal as
mentioned above in Sr.no. (b) Please provide a copy of one such Appeal
Application filed by the Department with Hon'ble High Court along with
corresponding Order of Hon. Tribunal. Status of such appeals filed may
also be provided.
e. Copies of Reference(s), if any, made to CBIC, DOPT or any other
Authorities and replies received from them, if any, either for
implementing or otherwise, the Orders of Hon. CAT, in respect of the
similarly placed officer(s), as mentioned in Sr.no. (b) who were not a
party to the said SC case. It is, therefore, requested that the
information/documents may please be provided to the undersigned.
Yours faithfully, (S. G. Rajan) Email: [email protected] Mob.
No.********52"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.10.2023 stating as under:
"Point a, b & c
The applicant has not mentioned any specific period for which the
information is requested. Further names of any officer cannot be
furnished as it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual as per the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point d
The applicant has not mentioned any specific period of the appeals filed.
Page 2 of 7
Point e
The information sought by the applicant is liable to be rejected as the
information relates to third party disclosure of which has no relationship
to any public activity or interest as per the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) of
the RTI, ACT 2005. There is no larger public interest involved in disclosure
of information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.10.2023. The FAA
vide its order dated 27.10.2023, held as under.
"1 I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, grounds of appeal,
comments of CPIO on the appeal and records available in file.
2 The appellant has contended that no response has been received by him
within the time limit from the CPIO. I find that CPIO vide letter dated
23.10.2023 has submitted the reply of RTI Application dated 27.08.2023
has been sent on 19.10.2023.
3 1 further find that the appellant had already filed RTI application
No.GSTCH/A/E/23/00066/1 dated 2105.2023 vide which same
information was sought by him. The RTI appellant was informed by the
CPIO vide letter GEXCOM/RTI/APP/3634/2023-RTI- O/O COMMR-CGST-
CHANDIGARH/1/1428254/2023 dated 17.07.2023 (copy enclosed).
Thereafter, the appellant filed RTI appeal No. GSTCH/A/E/23/00015
dated 11.07.2023 on the grounds that no response was received within
the time limit. A detailed Order-in-Appeal No.18/RTI/APPL/CHD/2023-24
dated 20/24.07.2023 (copy enclosed) was passed by the undersigned.
4 I find that the appellant has filed and sought the same information as
earlier provided to him as detailed in Para 4.3 above. In this context, it is
to quote that-
a. In the case of SK Lal vs Ministry of Railways (Appeal No-
CIC/OK/A/2006/00268- 272 dated 29.12.2006) the Central Information
Commission observed that though the RTI Act allows citizen to seek any
information other than the 10 categories exempted under Section 8, it
does not mean that the public authorities are required to entertain to all
sort of frivolous applications. The Central Information Commission held
that asking for "all the records" regarding various services and categories
of staff in the Railways (in the above case) "only amounts to making a
mockery of the Act.
Page 3 of 7
b. The Delhi High Court in its judgement in the case of Ram Gopal Yadav
vs Central Information Commission & Ors. (2016 SCC Online Del 5563)
held that if the information sought is too voluminous and requires a
disproportionate amount of diversion of resources, the public authority
has the right to refuse the request for information. The court further
stated that the RTI Act was not intended to be used as a tool for fishing
for information or to target public authorities with excessive and
unreasonable requests.
c. Central Board of Secondary Education Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.
(2011) 8 SCC 497. In this case, the Supreme Court held that if the
information sought is too voluminous or involves a disproportionately
large diversion of resources, it may affect the functioning of the public
authority, and the information can be denied under Section 7(9) of the
RTI Act.
5 I observe that you have filed frivolous and vexations RTI application with
the intention of harassing the public authority and hindering its
functioning. The Central Information Commission (CIC) has held in the
past that such actions amounted to abuse of the right to information can
impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
6 I further find that the RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency and
accountability in the functioning of public authorities and to curb
corruption, and it should not be used as a tool to settle personal
vendettas or to harass public officials. The CIC further held that the right
to information is not an absolute right and must be exercised responsibly
and with due regard for the public interest.
7 In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The appeal of the appellant is disposed of in abovesaid manner."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.Page 4 of 7
Respondent: Shri Bhupinder Singh Mundh, CPIO, appeared though video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the respondent. He stated that that his request for personal hearing before deciding the first appeal was ignored by the FAA and order passed by them was perfunctory. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information free of cost.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the applicant has not mentioned any specific period for which the information was requested. They stated that information sought was voluminous in nature, collation or compilation of the same would would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent public authority. Besides, they stated that the information sought pertained to third party, disclosure of the same has no relation to any public activity or interest and appellant has no connection with the above case. Therefore, they expressed their inability to provide the information under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that point-wise reply has been given by the respondent CPIO vide letter dated 19.10.2023. The FAA vide order dated 27.10.2023 passed the reasoned and speaking order while upholding the CPIO reply. The appellant has no connection with the cases referred by him in the RTI application and he failed to establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information.
In addition to the above, the respondent CPIO during the hearing submitted that the appellant has not mentioned any specific period for which the information was requested. Besides, they stated that information sought was voluminous in nature, collation or compilation of the same would would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent public authority. In this regard, the attention of the appellant was drawn towards the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 8 SCC497 as under:Page 5 of 7
"67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the 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 public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
In view of above observation, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 7 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Pr. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh, C R Building, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh - 160017 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)