Central Information Commission
Mrvjay Kumar Garg vs Gnctd on 21 January, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2014/000983
Vijay Kumar Garg v CPIO, Social Welfare Department, GNCTD
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 19.02.2014 Reply: 18.03.2014 Time:
FAA: 26.03.2014 FAO: 25.04.2014 Time:
SA: 11.06.2014 Hearing:2012015 Decision:2112015
Show cause
Compliance
Result: Appeal disposed of
Observation: Misuse of RTI v. Use of Section 4
Parties Present:
Appellant not present. Public Authority is represented by Dr. Nisha Aggarwal.
Information sought:
1. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for information in relation to the date of establishment of the office, Details of DSWO from the date of its establishment, from when the Widow Pension was started, from when the handicap pension was started..etc PIO response:
2. Information with respect to Point No. 1,311 was available in the website of the department, for Point No. 2 & 12 the information was not available with the department.
Ground for First Appeal:
3. Unsatisfactory information by PIO.
First Appellate Authority Order:
4. PIO was directed to furnish information in respect to Point No. 10 & 12 to the appellant within 15 days.
Ground For Second Appeal:
5. Nonfurnishing of the information sought.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
6. Respondent submitted that the appellant in a letter dated 02.05.2014 wrote he did not require that information anymore, and he was withdrawing the same.
Respondent further submitted that the information sought by the appellant was all available in the website and that the appellant was only in the habit of filing repeated RTI applications to harass them. The officer pointed out No. 12 of the RTI application of the appellant, making general allegations like "...that the office and the officers working in the department have been appointed to do Corruption, carelessness, doing what they wish to...".
7. The Commission, after hearing, observes that the last question of the appellant in his RTI application is totally defamatory, as he has made baseless allegation of corruption against all officers working in the office of the respondent authority without showing any basis. The officer present before the commission stated that Mr Vijay Kumar Garg, the appellant and his associates, were touts indulged in collecting money promising to secure pensions and when the authorities rejects on merits he would bully's the office by filing plethora of RTI applications choking their office.
8. The Commission noted appellant's numerous RTI applications on the same subject matter, will not attend in first appeals and had taken almost all cases to the Commission in Second Appeal or Complaint. This kind of attitude of the appellant has resulted in the loss of precious time of the Public authority and the Commission.
9. The Commission wonders as to why the Public authority is not taking any action against the touts when they complain against them as touts including the appellant. The Commission, exercising its powers under Section 19(8)(a) of RTI Act require the Public authority to conduct an inquiry, to probe into the allegation of brokerage by the appellant or any other person who is using the RTI application to pursue his own self interest. The Commission also recommends to the public authority to examine whether any employee of their office is involved in the matter, by way of providing illegal help to the appellant for the purpose of harassing the department.
10. Even though the Commission observes that this is a clear case of misuse of RTI Act by the appellant. The Commission takes the opportunity to direct the Public authority to put all the information which is general in nature and which the department has to provide Under Sec 4 of RTI Act in their website and a hard copy of the same be kept in their offices, both in Hindi and English. In response to the same, the respondent authority submitted that the information sought by the appellant and other welfare schemes of the department was already uploaded in their website. The best way of fighting misuse of RTI by persons such as appellant is to put all organizational information, welfare scheme related details on the website under Section 4 of RTI Act. Proper transparency mechanisms would leave no scope for touts.
11. The Commission would also like to appraise the public authority (all Public authority in general) that the best way to tackle such kind of RTI applicant and to prevent touts is to practice transparency. Every detail of welfare measure undertaken by the public authority should be predominantly published and should be made available to the public in general, so that public need not depend on such kind of touts.
12. The Commission warns the appellant from acting as tout, if acting, and from misusing the RTI Act. Such conduct of the appellant, if repeated will be deemed as frivolous and vexatious use of RTI act and this can result in imposition of cost on him as he is making public authority FAA and CIC to spend their resources and time while he prefers to just throw a letter of second appeal without any details and keeps off.
13. In this specific case, the Conduct of the appellant in giving letter dated 02.05.2014 that the information sought by him is not required and thereafter filing Second Appeal before the Commission clearly shows that the main purpose of the appellant is harassing the Public authority and the Commission and directs him to pay Rs 500 to the Respondent Authority, which amount shall be used for RTI cell of the public authority.
14. The Commission direct to the Public authority to publish in their website and in their notice board advising the people not to fall prey to false promises of touts, not to pay any money to them or any employee of the department.
15. The Commission directs the Public authority to place the present order in their website and circulate the same among their offices in Public interest, so that everyone will know about such kind of touts and misusers of RTI Act.
16. The Commission with above directions disposes of the present appeal of the appellant.
Sd/ (M.Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under the RTI Act, Govt. of NCT of Delhi % Distt. Welfare Officer (West), Social Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Jail Road Nirmal Chaya Complex, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Vijay Kumar Garg F49, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi 110041.