Central Information Commission
Wing Commander St Perumal vs Ministry Of Defence on 21 April, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus,New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
File No. CIC/CC/A/2016/000071/SD
CIC/CC/C/2016/000004/SD
Date of Decision : 21/04/2017
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Wing Commander ST Perumal
119/8 86th Street, Ashok Nagar
Chennai - 83
Respondent : CPIO
ECHS Cell Stn HQ
Fort Saint George
Chennai - 600009
RTI application filed on : 29/11/2015
PIO replied on : No reply
First appeal filed on : 13/06/2015
First Appellate Authority : No order
order
Second Appeal dated : 31/08/2015
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SHRI DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Note: It may be noted that the above referred File No.
CIC/CC/C/2016/000004/SD has been inadvertently registered by the Central
Registry of CIC as it is a duplicate of File No. CIC/CC/A/2016/000071/SD.
Accordingly, both the files have been clubbed and are being heard as a single
matter.
Information sought:
The Appellant sought copy of all cash book entries of the "Stn Cdr Fund"
account for the period from Jan. 2013 to April 2015 along with audit report of the referred account, names & particulars of all contractual employees employed in all the ECHS polyclinics under the jurisdiction of Stn HQ (Army), Chennai from the period of January 2009 to 31 March 2015 including the date 1 of their initial employment, renewal/extensions and copies of approval by competent authority of each renewal, etc. Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Col. Vineet Prabhat, Admn. Comdt & CPIO, Stn HQ,Fort Saint George, Chennai - 600009 present through VC.
Appellant stated that he has not received any reply from the CPIO or any order of FAA. He asserted that the CPIO & FAA are habitual of not complying with the provisions of the RTI Act. He further stated that he is facing intimidation and harassment at the hands of CPIO/FAA for filing RTI applications on various issues. In this context he prayed for action to be initiated u/s 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO.
CPIO submitted that the Appellant seeks voluminous information and is in the habit of filing baseless and malicious complaints for harassing and blackmailing officials. He further submitted that the Appellant is never satisfied with the information provided and has been misusing the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision Commission after taking into account the statements/submissions of both the parties during hearing cannot find substantive merit in invoking any penal section of the RTI Act.
However, Commission expresses serious displeasure over the conduct of the CPIO in not responding to the RTI application till date and his submissions in this regard are rather feeble and not acceptable. His averments of the Appellant harassing the public authority also appear much less convincing.2
CPIO is hereby warned to ensure that Right to Information of the Appellant is not obstructed as a matter of principle merely because he files multiple RTI Application(s) or seeks voluminous information.
CPIO is further directed to provide relevant and available information on the RTI Application to the Appellant within 30 days of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 3