Central Information Commission
Shiva Ram vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 11 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2024/634636
Shri Shiva Ram ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Date of Hearing : 09.07.2025
Date of Decision : 09.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.06.2024
PIO replied on : 24.07.2024
First Appeal filed on : 26.07.2024
First Appellate Order on : 05.08.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.06.2024 seeking information on following points:-
1. "Please arrange to provide the names of executives and non-Executives with designations were working at Kushalgarh SDCA of Bansawra SSA for the periods 21.08.2015 to 10.12.2015.
2. Please arrange to provide the name of Kushalgarh SDCA incharge with designation for the periods 21.08.2015 to 10.12.2015.
3. Please arrange to provide the name of Kushalgarh SDCA incharge with designation for the periods 21.08.2015 to 10.12.2015 who sanctioned the C/L,E/L ,Medical Leave of non executives of Kushalgarh SDCA .
4. Please arrange to provide the name of Kushalgarh SDCA incharge with designation for the periods 21.08.2015 to 10.12.2015 who filled the ACR(Now APAR) Kushalgarh SDCA non Executives.
5. Please arrange to provide the name of reporting officer of Kushalgarh SDCA incharge for the periods 21.08.2015 to 10.12.2015
6. Please arrange to provide the name of Kushalgarh SDCA incharge with designation for the periods 21.08.2015 to 10.12.2015 who issued the store from Banswara MM cell.
7. Please arrange to provide the reasons with supporting documents by my the then controlling officer why my E/L applied on dated 17.11.2015 for dated 28.11.2015 with station leave permission for Jodhpur rejected by Sh.
Sumit Doshi the then AGM(R&T) O/o TDM, Banswara on dated 21.11.2015 Page 1 (After 04 days).Any written letter for rejection please provide the letter and reasons with sign certify copies.
8. Please arrange to provide the reasons with supporting documents by my the then controlling officer why my E/L applied on dated 22.11.2015 for dated 28.11.2015 with station leave permission for Jodhpur rejected by Sh. Sumit Doshi the then AGM(R&T) O/o TDM, Banswara on dated 02.12.2015 (After 10 days).Any written letter for rejection please provide the letter and reasons with sign certify copies.
9. Please arrange to provide the name and designation of Regular AGM, DE ,MT and DGM (Look after) working at Banswara SSA. 10. Please arrange to provide the details of stay in Banswara SSA ( Provide Duration in Years) as per point no 09 for Banswara SSA from the post of non Executive/Executive
11. Please arrange to provide the reasons why their transfer not take place to other SSA /Circle/Hard tenure as per transfer policy of BSNL as they completed their tenure as per point no 09 officers (Regular DE,AGM and DGM Look after)."
The CPIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vide letter dated 24.07.2024 replied as under:-
"I would like to draw your kind attention towards chargesheet served by H'ble GMTD. Udaipur vide memo no. X-1/Dise./Shiva Ram/2015-16/12 dated 10.12.2015 and subsequently your appeal rejected by H'ble CGMT, Rajasthan. Since then you have filed following RTI Applications regarding Bagidora and Kushalgarh SDCAs.
S.N. Registration No. Name Current Received Closing date Status of date Request
1. BSNRJ/R/2018/50059 Shiva Request 10.01.2018 19.07.2018 Ram Disposed Of
2. BSNRJ/R/2018/50074 Saroj Request 03.05.2018 19.07.2018 Disposed of
3. BSNRJ/R/2018/50082 Saroj Request 21.05.2018 19.07.2018 Disposed of
4. BSNRJ/R/2018/50161 Saroj Request 20.09.20218 08.10.2018 Disposed of
5. BSNRJ/R/2018/50162 Shiva Request 22.09.2018 20.02.2020 Ram Disposed of
6. BSNRJ/R/2018/50180 Saroj Request 12.10.2018 16.07.2019 W/o Disposed Shiva of Ram
7. Etc. After passing of almost 09 years of charge'sheet's decision, you are still asking information in this matter and misusing the RTI Act.
Page 2 Both your RTI requests mentioned under reference are hereby disposed off."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 05.08.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Sumit Doshi, DGM The submissions of both the parties were heard. The CPIO in his oral submissions categorically stated that all the information which was available with the department has already been provided to the Appellant. However, despite of having received complete information, the Appellant has been repeatedly filing the RTI application on the same subject matter. The CPIO submitted that Appellant is misusing the RTI with the intention to harass the Organization.
Decision:
Perusal of records reveals that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act from available official records, has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. No legal infirmity is found in the response furnished by the Respondent.
While deciding the present Appeal, the Commission noted that the Appellant has been filing multiple RTI applications on the same subject matter, despite of having provided with the information sought. This behaviour is indicative of a vexatious and frivolous approach to the RTI Act. The RTI Act is intended to promote transparency and accountability, not to harass or intimidate public authorities.
The Commission noted that vexatious litigation and misuse of RTI Act has been discussed in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] wherein it has been held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....."
Emphasis supplied Page 3 Considering the adverse impact of unmanageable amount of queries, the Apex Court in a vital decision The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336) has categorically cautioned thus:
"...The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. ... The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well-informed democracy is transparency. However it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 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 government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use.."
Emphasis supplied In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interest. ...................................
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............................. 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 Page 6 of 6 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..."
Page 4 Emphasis supplied In the light of the aforementioned discussion and in view of the fact that response sent by the PIO is found legally appropriate, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
Further, the Appellant is advised to refrain from filing multiple and repetitive RTI applications on the same subject matter. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)