Central Information Commission
Ajit Kumar Roy vs Inland Waterways Authority Of India, ... on 31 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IWAOI/A/2024/122209
Shri AJIT KUMAR ROY ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Inland Waterways Authority of India, Noida
Date of Hearing : 29.07.2025
Date of Decision : 29.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.02.2024
PIO replied on : 26.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 29.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 29.05.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 11.07.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.02.2024 seeking information on following points:-
(1) "Action taken and reply received from IWAI, Noida on my prayer dated 18.12.2023 with documentary proofs (Copy enclosed) Regd. No. MSHPG/E/2023/0000723, concerned officers (1) Sri Rajesh Sharma, Dy.
Secretary (2) Sri, Uttam Kumar Mishra, U.S. (IWT) (2) Action taken with documentary evidences on my letter dated 13.01.2024 (Copy enclosed), addressed to Asst. Secretary, (Vigilance), IWAI, Noida."
The CPIO, Inland Waterways Authority of India, Noida vide letter dated 26.03.2024 replied as under:-
1. "Representation dated 18.12.2023 has been examined parawise, submitted IWAI comments on it. The same has been forwarded to Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways vide letter nó. IWAI-
1207/39/2022-AS (AE) dated 15.03.2024 along with Annexures I to X (copy enclosed) (Annexures provided with hard copy).
2. A letter dated 05.03.2024 and 21.03.2024 has been duly forwarded to the Director, Patna, seeking comments/justification for the allegations made by Sh. A. K. Roy.
Further action shall be taken post receipt of the reply from Director, Patna."
Page 1 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 29.05.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO, "With reference to An Appeal dated 29.04.2024 received at IWAI Noida on 03.05.2024 against the information provided, by PIO, IWAI, Head Office, Noida by stating that the details not provided. It is ordered that correct information has duly been provided by the PIO in response to the information sought by the applicant.
There is no further information to be provided at appeal stage as matter is Sub-Judice before Allahabad High Court in the Case No. 315/2024. Hence, the appeal dated 29.04.2024 received at IWAI 03.05.2024 is disposed off."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Further the respondent via written submissions dated 14.07.2025, provided point wise reply to the second appeal filed by the appellant, "The respondent submits the para wise reply to the second appeal before Hon'ble CIC, New Delhi in tabulation form:-
1. The respondent IVAl submitted detailed para wise reply vide letter no.
IWAI-12017/39/2022-AS(AE) dated 15.03.2024 to Under Secretary, MoPSW and copy was also forwarded to Sh. Ajit Kumar Roy by post, (please refer Annexure-9)"
Etc...
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Present, Ajay Kumar, CPIO/Assistant Secretary. The appellant is absent and the respondent is present in person. The respondent reiterates that they had replied to the RTI application and provided the appellant with the requisite information, they further submit that despite providing the appellant with the relevant information and giving para wise reply to the second appeal, the appellant remains unsatisfied and continues to further harass the respondents with multiple RTIs. The respondent stated that the appellant had filed 199 RTIs from the year 2009 to 2015 against various officers/staff of IWAI. In fact, the CIC, New Delhi vide its order dated 27.03.2015 disposed of 21 appeals of the appellant which were clubbed and heard and decided by the CIC stating that:-
"According to the written submission filed by the respondent authority, the appellant has filed around 199 RTI Applications since the year 2009 till date. The public authority has already spent inordinately large number of man hours in furnishing the information to the appellant, which in the process would have already impinged on the scarce resources of the organization. The Commission, therefore, is constrained to warn the appellant to be more careful in future, failing which the Commission will be compelled to dismiss his applications without hearing, on the grounds of being vexatious and repetitive and with an Page 2 ulterior motive. No further action is warranted, in the above mentioned cases, on the part of the respondent authorities."
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that under the provisions of the RTI Act, the CPIO has given appropriate response to the appellant. Further the commission advises the Appellant to refrain from misuse and abuse of the RTI regime by indulging in wasteful vexatious litigation and causing disruption in the functioning of a public office. The Commission in its aforesaid decision placed reliance on the following Apex Court decision regarding vexatious and frivolous petitions.
In the landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interest.
...................................
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............................. 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 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..."
Emphasis supplied 0 Page 3 In the view of the above, no further intervention of the commission is required in this case The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)