Central Information Commission
Meena Pandey vs Gnctd on 12 March, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/121111
MEENA PANDEY .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Superintending Engineer (SW),
Circle PWD, GNCTD, B-6,
NCC Building, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi - 110029 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06-03-2024
Date of Decision : 12-03-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20-08-2022
CPIO replied on : 12-09-2022
First appeal filed on : 07-12-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05-05-2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.08.2022 with the PIO, Chief Engineer, PWD, New Delhi seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"Kindly provide the following information pertaining to your department, regarding the repairing and maintenance of Defence Colony Fly Over in the year 2013-14
1. Details of the date of commencement and date of completion.
2. Details of the actual time allotted to contractor in the agreement of work.
3. Details of all the reasons for delay and copies of all the EOT.
4. Details of all the Letters, permission and NOC from the Delhi Police, Traffic department."
The PIO, O/o. Suptd. Engineer, (SW) Circle, PWD, GNCTD furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.09.2022 stating as under:
उपरोक्त नवषय में सूनचर् नकया जार्ा है नक आपके द्वारा लगाई गई आर.टी.आई. सं. शून्य निनांक 20.08.2022 जो निनांक 09.09.2022 को प्राप्त हुई है।
नजसके संबंध में आपको सूनचर् नकया जार्ा है नक आपके द्वारा मााँगी गयी सूचना इस पररमंडल कायगक्षेत्र के अनधकार से संबंनधर् नहीं है ।
The PIO, O/o. Suptd. Engineer, (SE) Circle, PWD, GNCTD furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.09.2022 stating as under:
मााँगी गयी सूचना इस कायागलय के अनधकार क्षेत्र में नहीं है । The PIO, O/o Executive Engineer, PWD Road Maintenance Division, New Delhi furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.10.2022 stating as under:
उपरोक्त नवषय के संिर्ग में आपको सूनचर् नकया जार्ा है नक आपके द्वारा मांगी गई सूचना इस कायागलय में उपलब्ध नहीं है। अर्ः इस कायागलय की सूचना शून्य समझी जाए। The CPIO, O/o Executive Engineer, Southeast Road- 1, PWD, GNCTD New Delhi furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.10.2022 stating as under:
"Flyover does not come under the jurisdiction of this office." Page 2 of 6 Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.12.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"I got no information. Replies of all the offices are almost same "doesn't pertain to this office or doesn't come under the jurisdiction of this office". Lastly, I got reply from the APIO, F-31, PWD, Delhi dated 24.04.2023 stating, information desired may please be treated as Zero from this office. I have not received any information for any of the PIO." Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Shri Ajay Narwal, EE/ FSI- cum- PIO present in person. Appellant reiterated the contents of this Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
Respondent submitted that he has received the RTI Application and hearing notice of the Commission on transfer vide letters dated 27.09.2022 and 01.03.2024. He apprised the Commission that his office maintained the records of structural repairs of roads and the information related to regular road maintenance can be obtained from the Road Department of the concerned circle office of PWD, GNCTD.
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission upon a perusal of records adversely viewed the shoddy conduct of the PIO O/o. Chief Engineer PWD, GNCTD, Delhi in having transferred the RTI Application back and forth amongst their offices without providing complete material information to the Appellant till date. This fact is evident from the record that the RTI Application received by the PIO, O/o. S.E. Page 3 of 6 Maintenance Circle South, PWD, GNCTD on 02.09.2022 who on 07.09.2022, transferred the same to Supt. Engineer, Maintenance Circle, PWD, GNCTD vide letter dated 07.09.2022. A.E./PIO, of transferee office upon receipt of RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act replied to the Appellant on 12.09.2022 intimating non-availability of relevant records. Further, PIO, O/o. Suptd. Engineer, (SE) Circle, PWD, GNCTD furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.09.2022 also informed no information was available with them. Replies on the same lines were given to the Appellant vide letters dated 21.10.2022 and 28.10.2022.
In addition to the above, the present PIO, EE and FSI, PWD, GNCTD New Delhi did not even take the pain to gather the relevant information from their concerned branches, to facilitate relevant information to the Appellant before making oral submissions before the Commission. Such casual conduct of the PIOs' causes unwarranted obstruction to the free flow of information to the information seeker under the RTI Act. This conduct is not appreciated.
Now, that considerable time has elapsed, the Commission directs PIO, EE/FSI, PWD, GNCTD to take all necessary steps to procure the available information as sought for in the RTI Application from the concerned record holder under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and provide the same directly to the Appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of these directions.
Be that as it may, the Commission finds it pertinent to mention that more than 15 cases of the same Appellant have already been heard and disposed of by another bench of this Commission. It is also worth noting that 21 Second Appeals was listed on 06.03.2024, for hearing which shows that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications with different public authority. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising her Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Commission further finds it expedient to note the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the purpose of carrying out her research work through instrumentality of RTI which is likely to clog the RTI channels and thus, depriving the ordinary citizen to exercise their right to information. Further, Page 4 of 6 the PIOs are already doing this assignment under the RTI Act in addition to their normal duties. In this regard, the Commission would like to draw attention of the parties towards a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a detailed manner. The relevant extract of ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017 is as under:
"..... Under the provisions of the RTI Act, while the CPIO/PIO is obliged to facilitate free flow of information to the citizen, it is equally incumbent upon the information seeker to put his/her application in the simplest form possible so that CPIO/PIO can understand the request unambiguously. The Commission is also mindful of the fact that the unenviable noble duty assigned under the RTI Act to Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) and First Appellate Authorities (FAA) by the respective Public Authorities is 'in addition to their normal duties and without any additional remuneration paid for the same' for which they must devote extra efforts, time, and energy..."
The Appellant is therefore cautioned to exercise her right to information in an informed and judicious manner.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date 12-03-2024 Authenticated true copy (अनर्प्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date Page 5 of 6 Page 6 of 6