Central Information Commission
Kailash Chandra Panda vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 13 December, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka
New Delhi -110067
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2017/157312
Appellant: Kailash Chandra Panda,
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
CPIO, DGM (CFA), BSNL,
O/o. The General Manager
Telecom Distt, Koraput-764020,
Distt. Koraput, Odisha.
Date of Hearing: 04.12.2017
Dated of Decision: 04.12.2017
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 14.06.2017 seeking particulars of employees handling online telephone revenue collection counters at various stations in the respective SSA unit on 13.06.2017; including details of CCN terminals installed at various stations in Odisha circle till date.
2. The CPIO responded on 13.07.2017. The appellant filed First Appeal on 13.07.2017. The FAA responded on 11.08.2017. The appellant filed second appeal on 18.08.2017 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant participated in the hearing through VC.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application dated 14.06.2017 and stated that no information has been provided to him by the respondent.
5. The appellant in his second appeal stated that the CPIO had earlier provided similar information vide their letter nos. RKL-RTI Act/07-08/17 dated 10.12.2008 and RKL-RTI Act/07-08/32 dated 06.02.2009.
6. The appellant stated that similar information has also been given to him vide Commission's order dated 23.04.2013 in Appeal no.
CIC/BS/A/2012/000419/2317 titled as Mr. Kailash Chnadra Panda Vs. CPIO, BSNL, Korput. The appellant stated that the information sought by him is in larger public interest.
7. The respondent stated that the appellant had filed various RTI applications for seeking information regarding particulars of employees handing online Telephone Revenue Collection counters at various stations and other related issues. The respondent stated that the appellant, who is an employee of BSNL, is in the habit of filing multiple RTI applications demanding voluminous information in formats devised by him on same issues with slightly altered words which have already been replied to many times in the past.
8. The respondent stated that the Commission vide its order dated 30.01.2015 in Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000433/6874; order dated 17.08.2012 in Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2011/001909/BS/0638; and order dated 04.07.2012 in Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000056/BS/0407 (all titled as Kailash Chandra Panda Vs. BSNL) had observed that the information sought by the appellant is huge and voluminous spreading over several subjects (as per the format designed by the appellant) and compiling the same would disproportionately divert the limited resources of the public authority. The respondent further stated that it is the abuse of law that despite giving the reply/information, the appellant was seeking the same information repeatedly. It amounts to wasting the time of the Hon'ble Commission and the Public Authority.
9. The appellant stated that the information sought by him is not voluminous as the respondent can easily compile the data from various SSAs by only making phone calls. The appellant further stated that there is a monthly statement in which there is data from which the respondent can furnish the complete information. He further reiterated that the information sought by him is in larger public interest. He stated that he intends to give this information to the Vigilance department in order to enable them to take action against the employees for not performing their duty sincerely.
10. During the hearing, the Commission asked the appellant to give details of monthly statement referred to by him viz. what exactly is it called, where it is maintained, etc. The appellant, despite making this statement in para 9, could not point out the specific monthly statement being referred to by him. The respondent, however, stated that there is no monthly statement vide which the data can be compiled as per the format designed by the appellant. In fact, that is why the appellant was referring to collecting data through phone calls.
11. On query from the Commission, the appellant stated that he had given documents ( received by him in response to his RTI applications) to Vigilance department to take action against some employees for not doing their work sincerely. The appellant stated that based on his earlier complaints to the Vigilance department, they had taken action in some cases and recommended the transfer of few employees.
Discussion/ observation:
12. There are 11 second appeals bearing nos. CIC/BSNLD/A/2017/154607; CIC/BSNLD/A/2017/159617; CIC/BSNLD/A/2017/159502; CIC/BSNLD/A/2017/160744; CIC/BSNLD/A/2017/151724; CIC/BSNLD/A/2017/154369; CIC/BSNLD/A/2017/155208; CIC/BSNLD/A/2017/157312; CIC/BSNLD/A/2017/111722; CIC/BSNLD/A/2017/186225; and CIC/BSNLD/A/2017/156671 of the appellant which are listed today for hearing before the Commission involving 9 (nine) different offices of BSNL. The Commission heard the appellant as well as the CPIO, BSNL, Sundergarh through video-conferencing and it was observed that the appellant is seeking identical information in above 9 cases. However, the period of information and place of information is different. The Commission takes a view that no fruitful purpose would be served if all CPIOs would be heard for providing the similar information as it amounts to wastage of time of the Commission and also public authority as the appellant is seeking such information since 2008 repeatedly. Therefore, the Commission did not connect the VCs in the matter for hearing of other CPIOs.
13. From the perusal of the records, the Commission observed that the respondent had disposed off the appellant's RTI applications as well as first appeals by simply giving reply that 'request rejected' and 'appeal disposed off' instead of giving reasoned reply and speaking orders.
14. The Commission also had disposed off appellant's appeal in Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000433/6874 on 30.01.2015 in which the appellant had sought for almost similar information in 15 tabular formats, out of which, one table is reproduced below for illustration:
ANNEXURE - 1 Provide duplicate SIM activation report at the following BSNL Customer Service Centres in Koraput Telecom District on 30/04/2012 as per the following format:
Station Prepaid Postpaid C-Topup Total Issued by Activated by (Name & (Name & Designation) Designation) Bissamcuttack Gunupur Jeypore Koraput Laxmipur Malkangiri Nabarangpur Rayagada Sunabeda Umerkote The Commission vide its order dated order dated 30.01.2015 had observed "The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in a similar matter vide its decision dated 14/11/2014 [SCA No.16480 of 2014 - P M Patel vs. CIC & others] has held that the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cited above by the CPIO would apply with full force in the facts of this case. We, therefore, agree with the respondent that providing such voluminous information would disproportionately divert their resources from day to day work. The appellant has not established any larger public interest, which would warrant a directive to the respondent to collect and compile the information, sought by him, even at the cost of diverting their resources from day to day work. The matter is closed".
15. The Commission further observed that it had also disposed off the appellant's Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2011/001909/BS/0638 in which the appellant had sought information regarding "details of employees working in Koraput district telecom as per annexure 1 to annexure 22 as provided by the appellant." In this matter, the Commission vide its order dated 17.08.2012 had observed that "Indiscriminate and impractical demands under the 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 counterproductive as it will unnecessarily overload the system with unproductive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused at the cost of the tax payers. We hope that the appellant will take a careful note of the above observations and refrain from misusing the provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO is directed to provide the information requested by the appellant as above within 30 days of the receipt of this order".
16. The Commission had also disposed off the appellant's appeal in Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000056/BS/0407 vide which the appellant sought information regarding: "1) Blank SIM card activation report, issued due to lost/damaged SIM cards at various CCN of Koraput telecom district in the month of May 2010. Nil report if no SIM is activated. 2) Various details of the posting of staff in Koraput Telecom District. 3) The data entry payment particulars of New prepaid mobile connections from Koraput Telecom District during the period from 01.01.2010 to 30.06.2010. 4) Provide the files maintained by the S.D.E (CMTS), O/o GMTD, Koraput. 5) The particulars of mobile towers working in Koraput telecom District. 6) The particulars of Help Desk working in Koraput Telecom District." In this matter, the Commission vide its order dated 04.07.2012 had observed that "The Commission after hearing the APIO and perusal of its above cited order dated 22/02/2011 is inclined to agree with his submissions that providing of voluminous information in the format(s) requested by the appellant would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. However, keeping the appellant's request in view, the APIO is directed to provide whatever information is readily available on record by 30/07/2012".
17. The Commission observed that the appellant is seeking information in particular formats designed by him. If the information is provided in these formats, it amounts to collating/compilation/collection of the information as these are not readily available with the respondent. The collation and collection of sought for information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority as voluminous information is required to be compiled by 9 offices of BSNL. The Commission observed that despite the voluminous information, the respondent had furnished readily available information to the appellant in his earlier cases.
18. The appellant has not alleged corruption in these cases, but only wishes to bring out inefficiencies of specific employees and that too by drawing inference on the basis of data for a single day only for which information has been sought. Needless to say that from information for a single day, no worthwhile inferences can be arrived at by anyone to castigate an employee for inefficiency. The Commission further observes that the appellant has not made out any case for larger public interest in disclosing the information. Besides, he has become habitual in asking similar/same information over and over again since 2008. It rather give rise to a suspicion that the objective is harassment of the employees who are working on telephone revenue collection counter.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India in its judgment dated 09.08 2011in Civil Appeal No.6454 OF 2011 in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. ... Vs.Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. ... has observed that "35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such nonavailable information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act......
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 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 prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
20. The Commission observed that in Shail Sahni Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 845 of 2014, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held 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."
Decision:
21. In view of the above, the respondent is not required to provide the sought for information to the appellant. The appeal is rejected.
22. The respondent is directed to be cautious in future while disposing RTI applications as well as first appeals. Reasoned reply and speaking orders should be given particularly when rejecting furnishing of information.
23. The appellant is admonished not to file fresh RTI applications/complaints/appeals on this subject as it would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar