Central Information Commission
Mukesh Kumar Saubhagya vs Revenue Department on 28 July, 2021
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ली, New Delhi - 110067
Mukesh Kumar Saubhagya ...अपीलकता/ िशकायतकता
...Appellant /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer,
JUNIOR STAFF OFFICER/PIO,
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL DEFENCE,
1, KRIPA NARAYAN MARG, CIVIL
LINES, NEW DELHI - 110054
... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27-07-2021
Date of Decision : 27-07-2021
सूचनाआयु : ीहीरालाल साम रया
Information Commissioner: Shri HeeralalSamariya
Note: Since the matters, as annexed in Annexure-I, pertain to the same
Appellant/Complainant & Respondent Authority, and the issues involved
are similar in nature, therefore, the Commission proposes to adjudicate
them jointly through the present order.
Page 1 of 38
CIC/REVDP/A/2019/640302&
CIC/REVDP/C/2019/640306
Relevant facts emerging from Appeal/ Complaint:
CIC/REVDP/ A/2019/640302 C/2019/640306
RTI application filed on : 10.01.2019 10.01.2019
CPIO replied on : 15.02.2019 15.02.2019
First appeal filed on : 20.02.2019 20.02.2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Not on record
Second Appeal / : 10.05.2019 10.05.2019
Complaintreceived at CIC
Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant soughtfollowing 04 points information:Page 2 of 38
PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 15.02.2019, as under:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 20-02-2019 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Grounds for Second Appeal/Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant/Complainant.Page 3 of 38
CIC/REVDP/A/2019/640309& CIC/REVDP/C/2019/640313 Relevant facts emerging from Appeal/Complaint:
CIC/REVDP/ A/2019/640309 C/2019/640313 RTI application filed on : 18.01.2019 10.01.2019 CPIO replied on : 15.02.2019 15.02.2019 First appeal filed on : 21.02.2019 21.02.2019 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Not on record Second Appeal / : 10.05.2019 10.05.2019 Complaintreceived at CIC Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant sought following 10 points information:
Etc. Page 4 of 38 PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 15.02.2019, as under:Page 5 of 38
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21-02-2019 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Grounds for Second Appeal/Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant/Complainant.Page 6 of 38
CIC/REVDP/A/2019/640314& CIC/REVDP/C/2019/640315 Relevant facts emerging from Appeal/Complaint:
CIC/REVDP/ A/2019/640314 C/2019/640315 RTI application filed on : 18.01.2019 10.01.2019 CPIO replied on : 15.02.2019 15.02.2019 First appeal filed on : 21.02.2019 21.02.2019 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Not on record Second Appeal / : 10.05.2019 10.05.2019 Complaintreceived at CIC Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant sought following 10 points information:
Etc. Page 7 of 38 PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 15.02.2019, as under:Page 8 of 38
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 20-02-2019 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Grounds for Second Appeal/Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant/Complainant.Page 9 of 38
CIC/REVDP/A/2019/640316& CIC/REVDP/C/2019/640317 Relevant facts emerging from Appeal/Complaint:
CIC/REVDP/ A/2019/640316 C/2019/640317 RTI application filed on : 21.02.2019 21.02.2019 CPIO replied on : 07.03.2019 07.03.2019 First appeal filed on : 14.03.2019 14.03.2019 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Not on record Second Appeal / : 10.05.2019 10.05.2019 Complaintreceived at CIC Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant sought following 11 points information:
Etc. Page 10 of 38 PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 07.03.2019, as under:Page 11 of 38
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14-03-2019 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Grounds for Second Appeal/Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant/Complainant.Page 12 of 38
CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653199, CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653212& CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653335 Relevant facts emerging from Appeal/Complaint:
CIC/REVDP/ A/2019/653199 C/2019/653212
RTI application filed on : 14.05.2019 14.05.2019
CPIO replied on : 20.06.2019 20.06.2019
First appeal filed on : 23.07.2019 23.07.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 02.09.2019 02.09.2019
Second Appeal / : 07.10.2019 07.10.2019
Complaintreceived at CIC
CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653335
RTI application filed on : 14.05.2019
CPIO replied on : 19.06.2019
First appeal filed on : 18.07.2019
First Appellate Authority order :
Second Appeal / : 09.10.2019
Complaintreceived at CIC
Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant sought following 12 points information:
Etc. PIO, O/o Controller, District Magistrate (SE),furnished reply, vide letter dated 20.06.2019, as under:Page 13 of 38
PIO furnished another reply, vide letter dated 19.06.2019, as under:Page 14 of 38 Page 15 of 38
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 23-07-2019.
The FAA, vide order dated 02-09-2019, held as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal/Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant/Complainant.Page 16 of 38
CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653321& CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653329 Relevant facts emerging from Appeal/Complaint:
CIC/REVDP/ A/2019/653321 C/2019/653329 RTI application filed on : 21.01.2019 21.01.2019 CPIO replied on : 16.04.2019 16.04.2019 First appeal filed on : 14.05.2019 14.05.2019 First Appellate Authority order : 20.09.2019 20.09.2019 Second Appeal / : 09.10.2019 09.10.2019 Complaintreceived at CIC Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant sought following 14 points information:
Etc. PIO, Junior Staff Officer, Directorate of Civil Defence, Delhi, furnished, vide letter dated 16-04-2019, as under:Page 17 of 38 Page 18 of 38
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14-05-2019.
The FAA, vide order dated 20-09-2019, as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal/Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant/Complainant.Page 19 of 38
CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653324& CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653333 Relevant facts emerging from Appeal/Complaint:
CIC/REVDP/ A/2019/653324 C/2019/653333 RTI application filed on : 21.01.2019 21.01.2019 CPIO replied on : 16.04.2019 16.04.2019 First appeal filed on : 14.05.2019 14.05.2019 First Appellate Authority order : 20.09.2019 20.09.2019 Second Appeal / : 09.10.2019 09.10.2019 Complaintreceived at CIC Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant sought following 15 points information:
Etc. PIO, Junior Staff Officer, Directorate of Civil Defence, Delhi, furnished reply, vide letter dated 16-04-2019, as under:Page 20 of 38
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14-05-2019.
The FAA, vide order dated 20-09-2019, held as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal/Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant/Complainant.Page 21 of 38
CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653326 Relevant facts emerging from Appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.02.2019 CPIO replied on : 16.04.2019 First appeal filed on : 14.05.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 20.09.2019 Second Appeal received at CIC : 09.10.2019 Information sought:
The Appellant sought following 12 points information:
Etc. Page 22 of 38 PIO, Junior Staff Officer, Directorate of Civil Defence, Delhi, furnished reply, vide letter dated 16-04-2019, as under:Page 23 of 38
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14-05-2019.
The,FAA vide order dated 20-09-2019, held as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 24 of 38
CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653327 Relevant facts emerging from Appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.05.2019 CPIO replied on : 19.06.2019 First appeal filed on : 18.07.2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal received at CIC : 09.10.2019 Information sought:
The Appellant sought following 12 points information:
Etc. Page 25 of 38 PIO furnished reply to the Appellant, vide letter dated 19.06.2019, as under:Page 26 of 38
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18-07-2019 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 27 of 38
CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653334 Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 25.02.2019 CPIO replied on : 16.04.2019 First appeal filed on : 13.05.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 20.09.2019 Complaintreceived at CIC : 09.10.2019 Information sought:
The Complainant sought following 12 points information:
Etc. Page 28 of 38 PIO, Junior Staff Officer, Directorate of Civil Defence, Delhi, furnished reply to the Complainant, vide letter dated 16-04-2019 stated:Page 29 of 38
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13-05-2019.
The FAA, vide order dated 20-09-2019, as under:
Grounds for Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correctinformation to the Complainant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant/ Complainant: Present in person Respondents: Ms. Trishna Chattopadhyay, JSO(CD) & PIO, present in person.Page 30 of 38
Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO in either of the referred cases. He further stated that reply provided is either misleading, vague or deliberately withheld. He furthermore requested the Commission to take proper action against the erring PIO.
PIO submitted that relevant information as available on record has already been provided to the Appellant/Complainant. She further stated that she would comply with the orders of the Commission, if any in the instant matter.
Observations Commission remarked at the outset based on the number of Appeals /Complaints of the Appellant/Complainantas well as the nature of information sought in the respective RTI Applications that he is harnessing various grudges against the Respondent authority on account of his service related matters.
It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality. However, adverting to cases such as this where the intention of the RTI Applicant is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that it is to only pester the public authorities; the notion of misuse of RTI Act well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments is relevant such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) &anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
'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 Page 31 of 38 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. 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 prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.' Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and
(c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' The aforesaid dicta essentially proves that the misuse of RTI Act is a well-recognized bane and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not after all absolute. Keeping this in view, Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future."Page 32 of 38
Now, having perused the instant 18 Second Appeals and complaints, this bench is of the considered opinion that these cases are merely service related grievance of the Appellant/Complainant and in spree of the same he has filed numerous RTI Application with repeated queries by merely adding them to new queries raised in succeeding RTI Applications and most of these RTI Applications are worded in a cumbersome manner and do not even conform to the 500word limit prescribed under Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012.
Now, the current milieu of the pandemic COVID-19 has caused a significant upheaval in the functioning of all establishments and businesses alike. While for the Commission, this translates into a huge backlog of Appeals and Complaints. In circumstances such as this, there is a pressing need to identify cases such as the ones under reference for cumulative disposal in order to facilitate expedient disposal of cases of genuine information seekers. In other words, this is where the aforementioned juxtaposition comes into play as the Commission seeks to strike a fine balance between the interests of genuine information seekers, while keeping the menace of frivolous RTI Applicants under check.
Decision:
Adverting to the supra, this bench of Commission after careful perusal of the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing and in the letter and spirit of RTI Act issue following directions:
· In case nos. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/640302 & CIC/REVDP/C/2019/640306:
Commission directs the PIO to provide a revised reply to the Appellant, free of cost, via speed/registered post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.However, PIO shall not furnishany information to the Appellantwhich is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005.
Further, PIO has provided timely response and thus, no malafide intention can be ascribed in respect of the same. In view of the foregoing no penal action is warranted in the matter. No further action lies.
· In case nos. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/640309 & CIC/REVDP/C/2019/640313:
Commission directs the PIO to sincerely search the relevant information sought once again in their records and accordingly,provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect available and relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated Page 33 of 38 to the Appellant telephonically and in writing. In case, relevant information pertains to some other Branch/Department, then PIO should procure and provide relevant documents for inspection. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided upon payment of the prescribed fees as per RTI Rules. However, PIO shall not furnishany information to the Appellantwhich is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005.
In case relevant records are still not available, then PIO must file an appropriate affidavit stating that relevant records as sought in instant the RTI Application is not available in record despite searching thoroughly. The said affidavit shall be sent by the PIO to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant.
Commission's directions should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
Further, PIO has provided timely response and thus, no malafide intention can be ascribed in respect of the same. In view of the foregoing no penal action is warranted in the matter. No further action lies.
· In case nos. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/640314 CIC/REVDP/ C/2019/640315:
Commission observes that available and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 15.02.2019 and same is deemed apt.
Further, PIO has provided timely response and thus, no malafide intention can be ascribed in respect of the same. In view of the foregoing no penal action is warranted in the matter. No further action lies.
· In case nos. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/640316 & CIC/REVDP/C/2019/640317: Commission directs the PIO to provide a revised reply on para 4 of the instant RTI application, free of cost.
As regards to paras 5-11, Commission directs the PIO to search the records again and provide the relevant information to the Appellant, free of cost. In case relevant records are still not available, then PIO must file an appropriate affidavit stating that relevant records as sought in instant the RTI Application is not available in record despite searching thoroughly. The said affidavit shall be sent by the PIO to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant.
As regards to paras 1-3, Commission upholds the reply of the PIO.Page 34 of 38
Further, PIO has provided timely response in the referred cases and thus, no malafide intention can be ascribed in respect of the same. In view of the foregoing no penal action is warranted in the matter. No further action lies.
· In case nos. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653199 & CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653212 & CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653335:
Commission directs the PIO to comply with the directions of the FAA, dated
02.09.2019, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.However, PIO shall not furnishany information to the Appellantwhich is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005.
Further, Commission observes that PIO has provided timely response in the referred cases and thus, no malafide intention can be ascribed in respect of the same. In view of the foregoing no penal action is warranted in the matter. No further action lies.
· In case nos. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653321 & CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653329:
Commission directs the PIO to comply with the directions of the FAA, dated 20.09.2019, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.However, PIO shall not furnishany information to the Appellantwhich is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005.
Further, Commission observes that PIO has provided timely response in the referred cases and thus, no malafide intention can be ascribed in respect of the same. In view of the foregoing no penal action is warranted in the matter. No further action lies.
· In case nos. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653324 & CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653333:
Commission directs the PIO to comply with the directions of the FAA, dated 20.09.2019, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.However, PIO shall not furnishany information to the Appellantwhich is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005.
Further, Commission observes that PIO has provided timely response in the referred cases and thus, no malafide intention can be ascribed in respect of the same. In view of the foregoing no penal action is warranted in the matter. No further action lies.
· In case no. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653326:
Page 35 of 38Commission directs the PIO to comply with the directions of the FAA, dated 20.09.2019, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.However, PIO shall not furnishany information to the Appellantwhich is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005.
Further, Commission observes that PIO has provided timely response in the referred cases and thus, no malafide intention can be ascribed in respect of the same. In view of the foregoing no penal action is warranted in the matter. No further action lies.
· In case no. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653327:
Commission observes that information sought at paras 1-6 & 8 pertained to some other department and PIO transferred the same to the concerned PIO. Commission directs the PIO to procure the relevant information from the concerned PIO and provide the same to the Appellant, free of cost, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
As regards to the remaining paras, reply is upheld.No further action lies.
· In case no. CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653334:
Further, Commission observes that PIO has provided appropriate in the referred cases and thus, no malafide intention can be ascribed in respect of the same. In view of the foregoing no penal action is warranted in the matter. No further action lies.
Further, Commission advises the Appellant/Complainant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future.
All the referred Appeal(s)/Complaint(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल साम रया)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Page 36 of 38
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 37 of 38
Annexure -I
1. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/640302
2. CIC/REVDP/C/2019/640306
3. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/640309
4. CIC/REVDP/C/2019/640313
5. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/640314
6. CIC/REVDP/ C/2019/640315
7. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/640316
8. CIC/REVDP/C/2019/640317
9. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653199
10. CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653212
11. CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653335
12. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653321
13. CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653329
14. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653324
15. CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653333
16. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653326
17. CIC/REVDP/A/2019/653327
18. CIC/REVDP/C/2019/653334
Page 38 of 38