Central Information Commission
Jayant Kumar Singh vs Department Of Defence on 24 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MODEF/C/2023/637533
Jayant Kumar Singh ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Sainik School Nalanda,
Vill - Nanand, PO - Pawapuri,
Dist.- Nalanda, Bihar - 803115 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.04.2025
Date of Decision : 24.04.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 06.12.2022
CPIO replied on : 27.12.2022
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.08.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.12.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"1. Please provide the following information at the earliest from the opening of current session to till date abiding the Sec 7 (1) of RTI Act 2005:Page 1 of 5
(a) Number of cadets withdrawn on parent request.
(b) Number of cadets expelled on disciplinary grounds.
(c) Number of request for withdrawal of cadets is pending with school.
(d) Number of cadets failed in Class XI at the end of session this year.
(e) Number of cadets cracked UPSC NDA/NA written exam in last three years.
(f) Number of cadets selected in NDA/NA in last three years.
2. None of the above information is protected under any exception of the RTI Act 2005. In case of seeking refuge under any exception it is requested to justify and explain the reasons as mentioned at para 19 (5) of the RTI Act 2005."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 27.12.2022 stating as under:
Particulars of information solicited Information Para 1 (a) Number of cadets withdrawn 22 (Twenty Two) on parent request of current session (2022-23).
Para 1 (b) Number of cadets expelled on 01 (One)
disciplinary grounds of current session
(2022-23).
Para 1 (c) Number of request for Nil
withdrawal of cadets is pending with
school.
Para 1 (d) Number of cadets failed in NA (session not concluded this
class XI at the end of session this year. year).
Para 1 (e) Number of cadets cracked Year 2020-33 (NDA-II) & 16 (NDA-I)
UPSC NDA/NA written exam in last three Year 2021-31 (NDA-II) & 32 (NDA-I)
years. Year 2022-21 (NDA-II) & 27 (NDA-I)
Para 1 (f) Number of cadets selected in Year 2020-07 (NDA-II) & 01 (NDA-I)
NDA/NA in last three years. Year 2021-00 (NDA-II) & 02 (NDA-I)
Year 2022-07 (NDA-II) & 02 (NDA-I)
Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record .
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:Page 2 of 5
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Tyagi, CPIO, attended the hearing through VC.
The Complainant stated he has not received the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Commission interjected and asked the Complainant to readout the contents of his RTI Application, the Complainant submitted that he is not aware of it and has not brought the relevant file with him to plead the case.
The Respondent submitted that their office has provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application to the Complainant vide letter dated 27.12.2022.
The Complainant later stated that he has received the averred reply from the Respondent.
Decision The Commission observed that the present complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section 18 of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by Page 3 of 5 refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the PIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant complaint.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from the perusal of records that 128 Second Appeals/ Complaint cases of the Appellant/Complainant against the same Public Authorities had already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. It is also worth noting that a total number of 25 Appeal/Complaint cases are listed for today's hearing and all these RTI Applications and Appeals/Complaints are based on his myriad grievances emanating from his termination from service. It was also opined that by way of filling these many RTI Applications seeking all and sundry information, the Appellant/Complainant is causing harassment to the public authority as well as wasting the time and resources of the Commission. Having adjudicated upon the number of such cases till date as well as from the nature of queries in the instant cases, the Commission observes that Appellant/Complaint projects a rather unhealthy approach in inundating the Sainik Schools, particularly, Sainik School, Ambikapur with so many RTI Applications, ostensibly to pressurize the public authority into settling his grievances emanating from termination of his service. This intention of the Appellant/Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant/Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The approach of the Appellant/Complainant is against the spirit of the RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. The Respondent has Page 4 of 5 pleaded for remedy against repeated and humongous number of RTI applications and Appeals by the same person. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022, wherein it was held as under and leave it to the respondent to choose a remedy.
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide. The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022."
In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)