Central Information Commission
N Anbarasan vs Ministry Of Communications & ... on 30 August, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171271/01356
File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171271
In the matter of:
N. Anbarasan
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/ Scientist 'F'
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 18/11/2017 CPIO replied on : 13/03/2018 First appeal filed on : 12/07/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 27/07/2018 Second Appeal dated : 01/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 13/08/2019 Date of Decision : 27/08/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Scientist F, MEITY and CPIO, Shri S.K Srivastava, Scientist G, MEITY and FAA Information Sought:
The appellant has sought certified copies of the following information pertaining to "Indian Language Computing Initiative: National Roll-Out-Plan"
for which administrative approval was accorded vide letter No. 11(21)/2005- HCC(TDIL) dated 01.12.2005:
1. Information pertaining to the sale of assets acquired for the project as mentioned under clause iv) of the "Terms and Conditions governing grant-in- aid" of sanction letter 11(21)/2005-HCC (TDIL) dated 29.9.2008.1
2. Progress-cum-achievement report submitted by CDAC as mentioned under clause vii) of the "Terms and Conditions governing grant-in-aid" of sanction letter 11(21)/2005-HCC(TDIL) dated 29.9.2008.
3. Certificate of acceptance of terms and conditions given by Chief Investigator/Head of the Institute as mentioned at the end of the "Terms and Conditions governing grant-in-aid" of sanction letter 11(21)/2005-HCC(TDIL) dated 29.9.2008.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant reiterated the contents of his second appeal. In his second appeal he had submitted that the CPIO, Shri Vijay Kumar, vide his letter dated 06.12.2017 had intimated that "On the above subject the inputs of the TDIL Programme of Human Centered Computing Division are being collated it may take some time please bear with us." He further submitted that the CPIO had provided uncertified copy of incomplete information vide letter dated NIL. In response to his letter to send certified copies of information as requested in the RTI application, the CPIO sent certified copies of the same incomplete information sent earlier.
He further submitted that as the letter is not dated, he faces difficulty in counting the 30 days time limit to file the First Appeal within the prescribed time limit. He requested the Commission to advise the CPIO to mention the date of the letter while providing information or sending intimation. The CPIO had intimated that "the query is non-specific" for the request made in point no.1 of the RTI application. Condition (iv) on page 2 of the sanction letter dated 29.09.2008 states that "Assets acquired wholly or substantially out of Government Grants shall not be disposal off without obtaining the prior approval of the sanctioning authority of Grants-in-aid". The appellant had requested all the information pertaining to approval accorded to dispose of the assets acquired for the project "Indian Language Computing Initiative: National roll-out plan" and information pertaining to the sale of the assets acquired. Furthermore, he submitted that he had clearly stated the reference No. and date of the sanction letter and even mentioned in which part of the sanction letter, the requested information is referred. Since the request is specific, the intimation of the CPIO is intended to deny the available 2 File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171271 information. This also proves that CPIO has failed to act diligently in accordance with the law.
In respect of points No. 2 & 4 of the RTI application, the CPIO has intimated that "The requested document may disclose the technical and financial data of commercial confidence to third party i.e. CDAC and may harm their competitive position as both are engaged in similar business activities" without citing any provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005. Furthermore, he submitted that a plain reading of the intimation implies that requested-information if provided would disclose the commercial confidence to CDAC. This is illogical as the requested information is the document submitted by CDAC itself, there is no possibility of disclosing commercial confidence to CDAC. Further, the commercial confidence denied under the provisions of section 8(1)(d) could be denied provided the requested information denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature. Under the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005, whichever/whatever information cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any person.
In respect of point No.3 of the RTI application, the CPIO has provided a copy of "Terms and conditions" instead of "Certificate of acceptance". This is misleading information.
The CPIO apprised the Commission about the background of the case, due to which information was not given. He submitted that as per the Sec 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 the requested documents pertain to advanced technology projects and are intellectual property of premiere R & D institution Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC) and these may disclose the technical and financial information of commercial confidence belonging to CDAC to the appellant M/s Applesoft and may harm the competitive position of CDAC as CDAC and M/s Applesoft both are engaged in language software development and are competitors.
He further relied on earlier judgments of the Commission. He further submitted that the appellant has filed a RTI appeal against the Ministry on the same subject which was heard on 17.07.2013 in the CIC. The matter was closed vide file no. CIC/BS/A/2012/000871/LS on the basis of Sec 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 as matter sought contains information of commercial confidence pertaining to CDAC.3
Similarly an appeal filed by the appellant against IIT Madras and IIT Kanpur seeking details about technologies & products developed, licensed, transferred, norms or guidelines to incubate companies, laboratories, project proposal, approval of Secretary/ concurrence of IFD/ Sanction letter/ Terms and conditions/ PRSG details/ Grant in Aid or funds received from national or International funding agencies/research and development work carried out in the area of Indian Languages besides other information etc was also dismissed vide file no. CIC/OK/A/2007/01000 & 01082 dated 20.12.2007 on the basis of Sec 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 as Appellant ran a company for software development.
Further in an appeal filed by the appellant against NIC seeking information relating to files documents and records relating to development of websites or web based applications from various departments of Karnataka and details regarding funds etc was dismissed vide file no 24/ICPB/2006 dated 05.06.2006 on the basis of RTI Act 2005 Sec 8(1)(d) as Appellant himself is a software developer.
He further submitted that the appellant has already been provided a large amount of information over the last 14 years pertaining to projects on open type fonts, language CDs, TDIL Data centre etc undertaken by CDAC Pune.
The appellant wanted to sell his language software products to CDAC under language CD project but it could not materialise. It seems that information is not being sought for larger public interest, but for private and personal purposes.
The appellant had filed a court case in this matter in the year 2012 (OS no 8799/2012) against CDAC in the Hon'ble Court of the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru city. The case has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Court on 23rd March 2019.
The appellant has now filed a writ petition no. 26309/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court Bengaluru and made Ministry of Electronics and IT as respondent no. 3. The matter is subjudice and any further information sharing with the appellant may harm the interests of the Govt. Furthermore, the CPIO 4 File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171271 submitted a copy of the letter from D/o Legal Affairs Bengaluru to substantiate his plea.
He further submitted that the appellant tries to find fault in the documents obtained through RTI and contemplates filling of court cases and FIRs thereafter.
The Appellant contended that being a citizen of India, he has every right to file as many RTI Applications as he likes. He further stated that information provided is misleading and fabricated, not to his satisfaction. Upon the Commission's query regarding as to why he feels the information provided is misleading or unsatisfactory, he insisted on alleged lack of bonafide in the conduct of the respondents.
The CPIO urged the Commission to look into the issues faced by the public authority in dealing with the RTI Applications and First Appeals of the Appellant as it has been incurring disproportionate diversion of resources.
Observations:
The appellant was given a patient hearing and each point of his second appeal was gone through in detail. The CPIO's contentions were also recorded. After hearing both the parties, the Commission fully agrees with the submissions of the CPIO regarding the nature of the information sought in the RTI applications. Further, it is also observed that the RTI application has been responded to pointwise.
The reply provided by the CPIO reads as follows:
1. Information pertaining to the The query is non-specific and hence sale of assets acquired for the the relevant document (if available project as mentioned under on record) could not be searched. clause iv) of the "Terms and Conditions governing grant-in-
aid" of sanction letter
5
11(21)/2005-HCC(TDIL) dated
29.9.2008
2. Progress-cum-achievement The requested document may
report submitted by CDAC as disclose the technical and financial
mentioned under clause vii) of data of commercial confidence to
the "Terms and Conditions third party i.e. CDAC and may harm
governing grant-in-aid" of their competitive position as both
sanction letter 11(21)/2005- are engaged in similar business
HCC(TDIL) dated 29.9.2008. activities. Therefore, applicant may seek the information directly from CDAC.
3. Certificate of acceptance of Copy of the relevant document terms and conditions given by available on can provided on the Chief Investigator/Head of the advance payment of Rs 4/- (Rs. 2/-
Institute as mentioned at the per copy)
end of the "Terms and
Conditions governing grant-in-
aid" of sanction letter
11(21)/2005-HCC(TDIL) dated
29.9.2008
4. Completion report submitted by The requested document may
CDAC for the Project proposal disclose the technical and financial
"Indian Language Computing data of commercial confidence to
Initiative: National Roll-out- third party i.e. CDAC and may harm
Plan" submitted by CDAC, which their competitive position as both
was approved vide are engaged in similar business
Administrative Approval activities. Therefore, applicant may
11(21)/2005-HCC(TDIL) dated seek the information directly from
01.12.2005 CDAC.
The FAA vide his order dated 27.07.2018 held as follows:
" Please refer to your appeal under RTI Act 2005 dated 12.07.2018 against information provided to you for your letters bearing no. 2001 (ADMIN)/NRTIA-19 (14-24) dated 18.11.2017 (having 75 separate requests) have been examined. It may be noted that MeitY has been providing information against all your earlier requests since 2005.
However, following is observed in relation to the current request:
2. You were provided with the certified copies of the available information by the CPIO to the extent information was available.6
File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171271
3. Sanction letters, etc. Of MEITY refers to certain orders/instructions of Ministry of Finance which may be referred on their website.
3. Sanction letters, etc. of MEITY refers to certain orders/ instructions of Ministry of Finance which may be referred on their website.
4. Documents created and submitted by C-DAC are their property and MeitY has fiduciary custody of these documets. These documents contain insight to technical and financial model of C-DAC working and disclosure of these may harm compe@@ve posi@on of C-DAC as provided in sec 8(1)(d) & (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Also sec@on 8(1)(j) is to be read in totality and parts are not to be read independently.
5. The informa@on could not be provided free as large number of your queries is dispropor@onately diver@ng the resources of MEITY in understanding, searching, copying and dispatching the requested informa@on due to which office work suffers.
In view of the above your appeal is rejected. "
On a perusal of the above reply, it was found to be pointwise and apt.
It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Commission finds it pertinent to rely on the following decisions:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] held 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 7 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 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."8
File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171271 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."
In the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
The appellant should know that the RTI Act is a means to promote public interest and should not to be used as an instrument to harass the public authority. His multiple RTI applications have a grave impact on the functioning of the public authority, if this is allowed, the public authority cannot focus on their core duties and their entire time will be devoted to such frivolous/vexatious/ repeated/multiple RTI questions. This is misuse and it has to be checked.
The earlier bench of the Commission in a similar case of a different party in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002319-SA held as follows:
"16. Filing of multiple RTI on the same subject creates fear among the public authority. The feel tormented by such disgruntled/ retired employees consuming through RTI their precious resource apart from causing mental agony...."9
A coordinate bench of the Commission in the matter of Ex MWO S P Bajpai vs CPIO, Dept of Personal Services vide decision dated 24.10.2018 held as follows:
"Upon a conjoint reading of the above dicta and the perusal of facts on record, it is established well beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant is in a habit of misusing his right to information. Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future. CPIO is advised to deal with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the subject of grant of Honorary Commission or anything related to service related grievance emanating from this subject in accordance with the aforesaid observations of the Commission."
Decision:
Following the above ratio and in view of the submissions of the CPIO and after thorough scrutiny of the records, in the interest of justice, the CPIO is directed to revisit the contention of the appellant in his second appeal and provide a revised reply in respect of points no. 1,2,3 and 4 as discussed during the hearing, within 7 days of the receipt of this order. The appellant is also advised to exercise his right to information in a responsible manner and refrain from filling multiple RTI applications involving the same issue.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 10