Central Information Commission
Man Mohan Pandey vs Bharat Electronics Ltd. on 21 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BELBL/A/2023/608886
MAN MOHAN PANDEY .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Manager HR, Bharat Electronics
Ltd., Kotdwara, Pauri Garwhal
- 246149 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14-05-2024
Date of Decision : 16-05-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11-11-2022
CPIO replied on : 26-12-2022
First appeal filed on : 28-12-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 24-01-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11-11-2022 seeking the following information:
"Please refer to the Order received by BEL from the Delhi Government for installation of CCTV systems in Delhi at a cost of Rs 320 Crores. During the eighth sitting of my Enquiry held on 04-09-2019 the Presenting Officer (Mr. Jitender Singh who was AGM in BEL-Kotdwara and in-charge of installation of the CCTV systems in Delhi) shared with me that a cabinet minister in the Delhi Government (Mr. Satyendra Jain) has Page 1 of 9 asked for money (bribe) from BEL to waive off LD (5% which was coming to Rs 16 Crores at that point of time). This he shared with me with respect to the various news items which had come out during that time (one article which appeared in Deccan Cornicle dated 23-08-2019 is put as Encl-1).
The PO, Mr. Jitendra Singh, shared with me that since BEL cannot pay directly, he had been asked by BEL Management to see how to increase the order value for the vendors who were carrying out the installation so that the money can be paid to the Minister through them.
I had brought out this conversation in my correspondence with top management of BEL and it was also registered in the correspondence with the Enquiry Officer as a part of the Minutes of meeting of 11th Enquiry Sitting held on 25-01-2020 (which I am enclosing as Encl-2).
I had again brought this out to the CMD in my interim reply to the Final Enquiry summary submitted by the Presenting Officer. I had brought out that Mr. Jitender Singh had acknowledged that he had indulged in corruption and questioned whether the fact reported by him (that extra money was to be paid to the vendors) was investigated by BEL management (Extract of the same is put in Encl-3).
As per RTI Act 2005 please provide me the following Information:
1.0 Was the Order for installation of CCTV system received by BEL from the Delhi Government for a total cost of Rs 320 Crores.
2.0 Was there a Late Delivery Clause in the Order. Was the late delivery clause for the final installation as 10% of the total value of Rs 320 Crores.
3.0 Was there a late delivery clause for various stages of delivery/installation also as part of the order given by Delhi Government. Was there a clause of payment of Rs 16 Crores as LD if there was delay in delivery/installation of 50% of the CCTVs by agreed timelines.
4.0 Please share the extracts of the LD clause as given in the Purchase Order/Agreement signed between BEL and Delhi Government.
5.0 How many vendors were given order by BEL for the Installation of the CCTV Cameras in Delhi.
6.0 After 04-09-2019 (after 8th Enquiry sitting when information regarding LD was shared with me by the PO Mr. Jitender Singh) please share with me whether any enhancement in the cost was given by BEL to the vendors installing the CCTV systems.Page 2 of 9
7.0 If the enhance payments were given to the vendors, please share with me what was the extra payment made to each vendor by BEL.
8.0 Was the CMD-BEL called by the Chief Minister of Delhi to discuss the delay in installation of the CCTV systems. Were there any Minutes of Meeting made. If there were Minutes of Meeting made, please share the same with me.
9.0 Was the CMD-BEL or Mr. Jitender Singh or any other senior Officer from BEL called by the cabinet minister (in-charge of PWD) in Delhi to discuss about the delay of installation of CCTV systems. If yes, please share any Minutes of meeting which were made for the meeting.
10.0 Did the CMD-BEL take cognizance of my correspondence with him with respect to Mr. Jitender Sing AGM/KOT publicly accepting that BEL indulged in Corruption by paying Bribe to the Delhi Government Officials through the vendors. Please share any action/investigation (if) ordered by CMD-BEL and share the report of the same."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the Appellant on 26-12-2022 stating as under:
"Point No 1: The information sought is clarificatory in nature hence not an information under section 2F of the RTI Act 2005.
Point No 2, 3, 4 & 5: The information pertains to Commercial confidence, hence cannot be provided under section 8(d) of RTI Act 2005.
Point No 6: The information sought is interrogatory in nature hence not an information under section 2F of the RTI Act 2005.
Point No 7. The information pertains to Commercial confidence, hence, cannot be provided under section 8(d) of RTI Act 2005.
Point No 8, 9 & 10: The information sought is interrogatory in nature hence not an information under section 2F of the RTI Act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28-12-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 24-01-2023, held as under:
"APPEAL IS REJECTED SINCE THE REPLY OF CPIO IS COMPLETE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.FURTHER, CPIO IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE SUITABLE REPLY TO THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIMELIMIT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 9Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Rati Ranjan Burman, CPIO and Senior DGM, attended the hearing through VC.
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. He added that he was GM (product support) in BEL and was inquiry officer appointed by CVO.
The Respondent submitted that an adequate and point-wise reply has been given by the CPIO vide letter dated 26.12.2022. He added that the Appellant was terminated from the service for sharing confidential information of BEL in public domain for which a case is pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and since the Appellant is disgruntled employee of the organisation, he is misusing his right to information by filing similar RTI Applications to resolve his grievance.
A written submission dated nil has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated nil and the same has been taken on record, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"I would like to draw your kind attention to the plight of my whole family which has been forced to undergo all sorts of adverse situations, extreme harassment, medical emergencies and monetary constraints for the past five years just because I did not compromise with corruption and brought out the corruption in the Rs 7900 Crores IACCS project. The whole corrupt ecosystem stood behind the CMD-BEL to falsely prove me to be an Anti-National element who had "Conspired to jeopardize National Security". My only request to you is to help me to get Justice for myself. I am not asking CIC to become the Judge for the illegal activities done by the BEL management (in connivance with the corrupt ecosystem) just because I brought out corruption in the Rs 7900 Crores IACCS project of Indian Air Force implemented by Bharat Electronics. I am only asking that CIC may kindly help me in getting the "Information" that I have been asking for from the MOD, CVC and BEL so that we can strengthen our case for getting Justice from the system.
Please refer to the hearing held on 15-06-2023 wherein BEL was forced to share the tampered Office Memo with me (it was tampered by BEL and submitted to CBI to falsely prove that I was an anti- national element who had exceeded the terms of reference of investigation given to me so as to leak "Top Secret" documents and "Jeopardize national security").Page 4 of 9
Please refer to the hearing held on 27-07-2023 wherein I was refused the "Information" with respect to providing me the various noting of the CVC wherein my complaints against the CMD-BEL and CVO-BEL were marked to CVO-BEL against the Complaint handling policy of the CVC. Although the I/C (while giving her judgement) took an emphatic view of the Ordeal faced by me but in her final order she advised me to approach the "appropriate forum for getting justice for myself". What that "appropriate forum" is has not been defined. Nor has she stated any logical reason why the "Information" has been refused in the final judgement (whereas during the course of the hearing she gave clear instructions to the CPIO so share the various noting with me). The full decision can be accessed vide the following link (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126540905/?type=print) as apart from the CIC site it is also available in the public domain.
Now I have got a letter from the CIC informing me that 14 Appeals filed by me are coming up for hearing on 14-05-2024. These are based on the RTI information which were denied to me by BEL.
The background of my putting the RTI needs to be understood by you before you give a decision on my appeal. I was made the Investigation Officer by CVO-BEL vide Office Memo dated 18-07-2018 to investigate corruption reported in the Rs 7900 Crores IACCS Project and I submitted my report on 03-10-2018 bringing out the various gross deviations (violations of BEL Works Contract Manual and CVC norms) in ordering of the Detailed Project report (DPR) to M/s R D Konsultants by BEL. As part of the DPR M/s R D Konsultants decided all the equipment which were to be used for making the underground buildings standalone blast proof. As brought out by M/s RD Konsultants in his Presentation (even before he got the order) that he had working relationship with all the European vendors who supply the equipment. In the DPR he defined the vendors along with the vendor reference. The same was conveyed to the Air Force by BEL and these vendors were included in the IACCS Contract signed between BEL and Air Force. The then CMD-BEL made a Technical Committee (which acted as a rubber stamp) to validate the specifications and vendor for the equipment suggested by M/s R D Konsultants. Hence all ordering of equipment was done to the vendors defined by M.s R D Konsultants. This was against the BEL purchase procedures since it calls for competitive bidding and multiple vendors which are identified by the Design team.
The same was validated by the CVO-BEL in his final Vigilance report dated 29-03- 2019. However, the CMD-BEL spread the false propaganda (with the backing received from Indian Air Force) claiming that no corruption or deviation had taken place in the implementation of the project (including the ordering of DPR). I was termed as a "Disgruntled Element". A one sided Disciplinary Enquiry was ordered against me and the Presenting Officer as well as the Enquiry Officer (who was Ex-GM-BEL) were totally biased and part of the corrupt eco-system which acted against me. The Enquiry Officer was also absorbed as Director in a Private Defence manufacturing company 9M/s Paras Defence) where the Ex-CMD BEL who has been named in the FIR filed by CBI was already a Director (clearly rewarding him for carrying out a one sided biased enquiry against me to save the corrupt by falsely proving my investigation to be a Conspiracy to jeopardize National security) Page 5 of 9 The above referred RTI was put by me to prove that the Presenting Officer (Mr. Jitender Singh who was AGM/Kotdwara Unit was part of the corrupt persons who were close to the CMD-BEL (who was himself involved in the corruption in implementation of IACCS Project). The Presenting Officer had shared with me that he was the Project Manager for installation and commissioning of the CCTV systems for the Delhi Government. On an Article which was published in the Newspaper on 23rd August 2019 (with respect to the Delhi government proposing to put Late Delivery penalty on BEL for delay in the installation and commissioning of the CCTV systems in Delhi (which was being fore fronted by Mr. Jitender Singh) he acknowledged to me that the Delhi Government was wanting BEL to pay them money (bribe) to avoid the Late Deliver penalty. He shared with me that since BEL was a Public Sector Undertaking and cannot pay money directly the CMD had asked him to enhance the Payment to be paid to the various vendors (who were ordered the supply and installation and commissioning of the CCTV systems). In the BEL Portal the Purchase Orders are displayed (as per CVC requirements) and it is clearly seen that all the Vendors were given repeat orders by BEL within one month of Mr. Jitender Singh acknowledging (during the 8th Enquiry sitting held on 04-09-2019) that the CMD-BEL had asked him to enhance the payment to all the vendors (so that the money could be paid to the Delhi government through these vendors). I had put this acknowledgement made by the PO as part of my reply to the 11th Enquiry sitting which was conducted in my absence (as I was not medically fit). This acknowledgement which was made part of the 11th Enquiry sitting by the Enquiry Officer was duly signed by both the EO and the PO (this acknowledgement was not refuted by the PO). When the PO submitted his final Enquiry summary, I replied to the CMD-BEL bringing out that the PO has acknowledged his involvement in corruption in Delhi Government CCTV project and asked him whether any action has been taken by the CMD. The CMD has also not denied this acknowledgement. The information asked by me through this RTI was with respect to the Ordering of the procurement, installation and commissioning of the CCTV system to the various vendors and the enhancement of cost which was ordered to them (as acknowledged by the PO) and also minutes of meeting of any interaction which had taken place between BEL Officials and Officials of the Delhi government. All the "Information" sought by me through this RTI was rejected by the CPIO with the remark that the information sought was commercial confidential and hence cannot be provided". I had asked for the Late Delivery clause as given in the order placed by Delhi Government to BEL and this in no way is commercially confident in nature. I had asked for the Number of vendors who were given the order for supply, installation and commissioning of the CCTV system in Delhi. The information with respect to orders placed for more than one crores is already published in BEL Website which exposes the blatant lies resorted to by the CPIO. The BEL Website for orders placed in March 2019 clearly brings out the names of the four vendors who were given the order (Screen Print enclosed). There may be others also which is what I have asked for.
I had asked if any enhanced payment (repeat order) was placed to the vendors (as acknowledged by Mr. Jitender Singh during the 8th Enquiry sitting). The CPIO has Page 6 of 9 refused this also claiming it to be commercial confidence. However, the BEL Website for order mare than One Crores Placed in October 2019 (Screen Print of BEL Website is enclosed) clearly brings out that repeat order was placed for the CCTV system to four vendors. Hence the blatant lies resorted to by the CPIO stands exposed. I had asked if any meeting had taken place between BEL Officials and Delhi Government Officials with respect to the Late Delivery and if any meeting had taken place then to share with me the minutes of meeting of the same. But this was also refused by the CPIO.
I had asked if any action was taken by the CMD-BEL on the information shared by me with me with respect to the acknowledgement made by the PO with respect to the bribery paid to the Delhi Government and if any enquiry was ordered on the same. This also has been refused by the CPIO.
In my First Appeal to the FAA I had given point wise details with respect to each "information' asked by me with detailed explanation why the reply given by the CPIO was in violation of the RTI act. But as usual the FAA has just closed the Appeal with the standard remark that the "reply given by the CPIO is complete to the extent possible".
I am not a crusader against corruption and my mission is not to bring out the corruption done by BEL in connivance with the Delhi Government in the CCTV project implementation for Delhi.
Through the information sought by me I only want to bring out how the corrupt ecosystem acted against me only because I exposed corruption in Rs 7900 Crores IACCS Project. The Information if provided to me would expose the Presenting Officer of being a stooge to the CMD-BEL who was himself involved in corruption. I hope that the CIC will take cognizance of the wrong information and blatant lie resorted to by the CPIO BEL and FAA. If as per CIC any lie can be resorted to by CPIO to close any RTI and the CIC can only be a mute observer (with the claim that CIC is not a legal body to decide whether any illegal activity is being done by the CPIO) then I have nothing to say."
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that an appropriate and point- wise reply in terms of RTI Act has been provided by the Respondent vide letter dated 26.12.2022 and the Commission upholds the same. Be that as it may, the Commission from perusal of records observes that more than 14 cases of the same Appellant against same and related Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Appeal listed for today's hearing have been heard together along with other 13 matters of the Appellant simultaneously and the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Page 7 of 9 Applications seeking similar information. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
It appears that the Appellant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter-productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied Therefore, the Commission counsels the Appellant not to file repetitive similar RTI Applications which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court Page 8 of 9 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 -
"...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 finds no scope of intervention in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्ि) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणर् सत्यापपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)