Central Information Commission
K. Balu vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 5 June, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
वतीय अपील सं#या/Second Appeal No. CIC/BHELD/A/2018/637407
K. Balu ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Bharat Heavy Electricals ...$ तवाद /Respondent
Limited, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell,
BHEL Corporate Office, BHEL
House, Siri Fort, New Delhi -
110049.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 02-06-2017 FA : 08-07-2018 SA : 23-12-2018
CPIO : 19-07-2017 FAO : 24-10-2018 Hearing: 29-05-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, RTI Cell, BHEL Corporate Office, BHEL House, Sirifort, New Delhi seeking information on 30 points, including, inter-alia:
"(i) Name and designation of authority having authority to publish this employment notification;
(ii) Copy of approval by the competent authority to publish this employment notification;Page 1 of 6
(iii) Copy of vacancy requirements received from BHEL Units, based on which the total vacancy requirement arrived;
(iv) List of appointing authorities for Supervisor Trainee;
(v) List of appointing authorities for Engineer Trainee;
(vi) Total number of applications received for the post of Supervisor Trainee Discipline wise and reservation category wise, etc."
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 29.10.2017 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 27.12.2017 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-call. The respondent, Ms. Arpita Mehta, CPIO attended the hearing through video-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 26.05.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on point nos. 8, 9, 13, 15 and 16 of his RTI application. The appellant further stated that copy of written submissions which was filed by the respondent has not been provided to him. The appellant alleged that there is a corruption in the respondent public authority and that is why they are obstructing the information. The appellant submits that the CPIO's statement that the requested information is available in hard copy is not believable for the reason that the candidates were allowed to submit their application through on-line only. All recruitment activities should have been processed by computers. The CPIO Page 2 of 6 with the intention to deny the requested information had made false statement. In order to prove the CPIO's malafide intention to deny the requested information. The appellant further submitted that the RTI Application dated 02/06/2017 was replied by the CPIO vide his letter dated 19/07/2017. The reply was given after the expiry of mandatory time limit. Therefore, the information should be furnished at free of cost under section 7(6) of RTI Act. Hence the demand of CPIO to pay information fee is illegal. The appellant further stated that the CPIO had calculated the fee roughly. The CPIO had failed to furnish exact information fee.
6. The respondent submitted that the appellant, Sh. K. Balu is a habitual information seeker with BHEL who recurrently files applications before BHEL. He is an ex-employee of our company and is using RTI as a tool to address his grievances against the company. Not only through RTI, the appellant is repetitively, parallelly and frequently invoking other mediums like Grievance redressal system; representations to Directors/CMD/Ministries etc. only with a vexatious motive to torment the Authorities at BHEL. After filing RTIs, as a characteristic, the applicant has been persistently calling the CPIO/Appellate Authority and other officials of BHEL for either threatening or imposing his own belief of the systems in BHEL. The respondent further stated that in this particular RTI application, the appellant has either sought clarifications and proofs further to the reply of the then CPIO /made counter reply to the CPIO's reply or made frivolous accusations doubting the competence of the then CPIO.
7. The respondent further submitted that point wise reply has already been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 19.07.2017. The respondent further submitted that they have updated the status of this RTI Application on 29/06/2017 through online and forwarded his reply bearing ref No: No.AA/CPIO/2016-17 dated 19/07/2017 on hard copy to the appellant. The CPIO advised to pay Rs.5260/- as information fee for furnishing information for the query nos. 8,9,13,15 and 16. The respondent further stated that the then CPIO expressed his Page 3 of 6 willingness to provide the desired information but as the information sought by the appellant was voluminous, the then CPIO advised him to submit the requisite fee for the documents at the rate of Rs. 2 per page as per the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Rules made thereunder. However, instead of paying the fee and receiving the desired documents, the appellant started making representations asking for clarifications and posed another RTI application making derogatory remarks like he 'has doubt on the CPIO's competency' and has sought some copies as sample, presumably to assess CPIO's competency.
Decision:
8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought voluminous information from the respondent public authority covering 30 points, out of which the appellant was aggrieved with the reply given on point nos. 8, 9, 13, 15 and 16 of his RTI application. The appellant contested that the information should be provided to him free of cost, as the reply given by the respondent is with delay. The Commission observed that since the respondent has given an interim reply dated 29.06.2017 to the appellant informing him that the reply is under process and final reply shall be provided after getting information from the concerned department. Therefore, on 19.07.2017, final point-wise reply was provided to the appellant. The Commission is of the view that since the appellant has sought voluminous information, it took time to the respondent in collecting and collating the information. No malafide was observed on the part of the respondent.
9. Further, the respondent has categorically informed the appellant that the recruitment process is online, but, all the intermediate documents are available in hard-copy. Further, the final outcome of the recruitment process is in public domain. Therefore, the information sought by the appellant on said points are voluminous in nature and is available in hard-copy, the respondent had asked the Page 4 of 6 appellant to deposit money in order to obtain the information. The Commission further observed that the respondent has calculated the fee roughly but the exact amount has not been provided to the appellant. The Commission is of the view that the respondent can ask photocopy charges on conservative side.
10. In view of the above discussions and observations and in the interest of justice, the Commission directs the respondent to facilitate inspection of records to the appellant on point nos. 8, 9, 13, 15 and 16 of his RTI application on a mutually convenient time and date and the appellant may take desired documents after inspection of records on payment of requisite photocopy charges. The above directions of the Commission should be complied within a period of 30 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कुमार ग&ु ता)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ता
सूचना आय'
Information Commissioner (स ु त)
त
दनांक / Date:29-05-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अ(भ$मा*णत स,या पत $ त)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 5 of 6
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, BHEL Corporate
Office, BHEL House, Siri Fort, New
Delhi - 110049.
2. Mr. K. Balu
Page 6 of 6