Central Information Commission
Mr.Gopal Soni vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 15 July, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/2305
Appellant /Complainant : Shri Gopal Soni, Ajmer
Public Authority : New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Mumbai
(Shri S.K. Dash, Mgr./PIO)
Date of Hearing : 15 July 2013
Date of Decision : 15 July 2013
Facts:
1. Appellant submitted RTI application dated 19 May 2012before the CPIO, Official Language Department, Khan Market, Delhi seeking details from New India Assurance Co. Ltd regarding status of his employment as per records of NIACL on 09.04.2012 along with other information.
2. Vide CPIO Order dated 12 July 2012, w.r.t. the information sought under Point Nos.2,3,4,5,6&7; CPIO provided replies received from the concerned departments and denied the information sought under Point No.1 as it was not held by them.
3. Not satisfied by the CPIO's reply, the Appellant preferred First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority dated 07 August 2012.
4. Vide FAA Order dated 23 August 2012, the FAA upheld the Order of the CPIO as he did not find any merit for further consideration and observed that the sole objective of the Appellant is to settle score with the Public Authority. Accordingly he disposed of the matter.
5. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the Public Authority, the Appellant preferred Second Appeal before the Commission.
6. Matter was heard today. Respondent as above appeared in person. Appellant was heard by videoconferencing from Ajmer.
Decision notice Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/2305
7. During the course of the hearing, the appellant was warned several times regarding the use of unparliamentary language with reference to the respondents. However in spite of the warnings, the appellant continued to use unparliamentary adjectives and the Commission is left with no choice but to close the hearing and to dismiss the appeal of the appellant.
8. It is placed on record that as per the averments of the CPIO, the appellant has preferred a total of 253 RTI applications at Head Office alone with the object of disrupting the normal work of the public authority and to divert its scarce resources without any commensurate larger public interest being met. The appellant is warned to use the cherished right given to him under the transparency act with greater responsibility and always bear in mind the voice of the Supreme Court of India as reflected in Para 37 of decision of Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. Vs CBSE & Anr (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011of 9 August 201): "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. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in Section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). 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 nonproductive 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 Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/2305 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 a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tel. No. 01126105027 Copy to:
1. Shri Gopal Soni (Ex employee) C231, Panchsheel Nagar Ajmer305004 (Rlajasthan)
2. The CPIO Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office - 330000 2nd. Floor, Nehru Place, Tonk Road Jaipur302015 (Rajasthan)
3. The Appellate Authority Dy. General Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd., H.O : New India Assurance Bldg., 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai400001 Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/2305