Central Information Commission
Dhanaji Vishnu Khavare vs Indian Navy on 6 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/INAVY/A/2024/122231
Dhanaji Vishnu Khavare ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO,
HQ, Western Naval Command
5th Floor, Noorbhoy Building,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai-
400001
Date of Hearing : 05.03.2026
Date of Decision : 06.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from second appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.04.2024
CPIO replied on :
First appeal filed on : 14.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order :
2nd Appeal dated : 15.07.2024
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.04.2024 seeking the following information:
i) Please provide a STANDING ORDER of SHO(NAVY) MUMBAI, colaba.
ii) Please provide certified copies of nature of work of PEST CONTROI WORKER in SHO(NAVY) MUMBAI under HQWNC
iii) Please provide certified copies of nature of duties of PEST CONTROL WORKER in SHO(NA\r{ MUMBAI under HQWNC
iv) Please provide certified copies of nature of duties who is working under FLEET PEST CONTROL UNIT (NAVY) MUMBAI.
v) Please provide certified copies of Derailment register of PEST CONTROL WORKER SHO(NAVY) MUMBAI from June 2021 to JAN 2023
vi) Please provide certified copies of attendance register of fleet pest control unit( navy) Mumbai and family welfare centre which is come under SHO(NAVY) MUMBAI from JANUARY 2020 TO DECEMBER 2020 and JANUARY 2021 TO JANUARY 2023
vii) Please provide a certified copy of SHO (NAVY) mumbai staff who will get TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE during the covid pandemic period from April 2020 to October 2020
xi) Please provide a information of posts exists in SHO(NAVY) MUMBAT industrial cadre.
xi) ls HSK-I( tinsmith) POST exist in SHO{NAVY) MUMBAl. lf yes. Please provide the office memorandum {s)/ circular/Notification issued by HEADQUARTERS WESTERN NAVAL COMMAND MUMBAI.
xii) Please provide a charter of duties of HSK-I( TINSMITH) Xii) PEST CONTROL WORKER allowed to work on onboard ships and onboard submarine. lf yes, please provide the office memorandum(s)/ Circular/Notification issued by Headquarters WESTERN NAVAL COMMAND MUMBAI
xiii) Please provide a SRO of Pest Control worker/Head pest control worker.
xiv) Please provide a information is PPE kit issued to PEST CONTROL WORKERS. If yes, please provide the office memorandum(s)/ circular/Notification issued by HEADQUARTERS WESTERN NAVAL COMMAND MUMBAI
xv) please provide a information total number of ltrs of milk issued in per day to the PEST CONTROL WORKER /HEAD PEST CONTROL WORKER
2. No reply from CPIO with respect to RTI application dated 10.04.2024 is found on record, however, a reply dated 30.05.2023 with respect to an earlier RTI application dated 10.04.2023 is found on record which appears to pertains Page 2 of 6 with similar information as sought in the instant RTI application. CPIO reply dated 30.05.2023 states as under:
(a) Query 1- Standing order contains restricted information and same is exempted under section 8 (1) (i) of RTI Act 2005. Therefore it cannot be physically given, however it can be physically shown.
(b) Query 2 & 3- Nature of work and duties of PCWs earlier known as beganes at SHO (N) is vide IHQ letter no MH/ 2417 dated 06 Nov 86 (copy enclosed). Beganies were redesignated as Pest Control Workers vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence Corrigendum No. CS/ 0369/ V/ NHQ/ 1445/2001/ D (Med) dated 02 Jul 2001 attached as enclosure. Nature of work and duties remain the same as those of Begaries or Pest Control Workers.
(c) Query 4 - Same as Query no 2 as FPCU is part of SHO (Navy), nature of duties of Fleet Pest Control Unit (FPCU|) are same as those of Pest Control Workers which have been enumerated in Query No. 2.
(d) Query 5 & 6 - Detailment & Attendance register of PCWs, FPCU and FWC staff contains Personal Information of other individual and disclosure of the same is exempted under section 8 (1) (i) of RTI Act 2005. However, you may visit this unit and inspect the same physically.
(e) Query 7 - Name of the said staff and copy for the same cannot be provided as per section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 and it was paid in accordance with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance (Government of India) Office Memorandum No. 21/3/2020
(f) Query 11 (a) - As per Anneexure B to Ministry of Defence Letter No. CS/0369/V/NHO 0369/IV/NHQ/1988/ D (N-II) dated 04 Sep 1974.
(g) Query 11 (b)- As per Anneexure B to Ministry of Defence Letter No. CS/0369/IV/NHQ/1988/ D (N-II) dated 04 Sept 1974 (copy enclosed).
(h) Query 12 (a) - The Tinsmith has to carry out duties comprising of repair and maintenance and any other duties as assigned by O i/c.
(i) Query 12 (b) - PCWs are allowed to work on Ships/ Submarines as per standard set of duties. Please see reply on Query 2 of this letter. Ships and submarines are Naval Establishment as per Navy Act 1957.
(j) Query 13 - It is published in The Gazette CG-DL-W-04052022-235524 dated 24 Apr-30 Apr 2022. Same is available in of India No. public domain.
(k) Query 14 - PCWs are given Dress Allowance of Rs. 5000/- every year in the month of July as per letter No. 19051/1/2017 -E. IV dated 02 Aug 2017 and F. No. 14/4/2015- JCA 2 dated 31 Aug 2017 (copy enclosed) and PPE (Gloves, Masks and Goggles) are issued to them from unit resources as on required basis.
(l) Query 15 - PCWs are provided 250 ml milk per day as per HQWNC Letter No. SO/4471/202 dated 15 Oct 2003 (copy enclosed).Page 3 of 6
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.06.2024. No FAA order is found on record, however, FAA order dated 30.06.2023 with respect to First Appeal dated 14.06.2023 on similar case is found on record which states as under:
"The above mentioned First Appeal was examined and it is seen that your RTI application dated 10 April 2023, was appropriately responded by HQWNC/PIO vide letter dated 30 May 2023. Further, relevant copies of the information also forwarded along with the RTI Reply letter. However, in true spirit of RTI, it is intimated that you may also visit SHO (MBI) for physical inspection of standing order, detailment register, attendance register etc".
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Mr. Dhanaji Vishnu Khavare Respondent: Ms. Raj Laxmi UDC for Captain Gaurav Mahajan, CPIO
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that chart on duty has not been provided to him and no action has been taken on his RTI application. He also submitted that as per the orders of FAA he had inspected the documents.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that available information has been provided to the appellant within the prescribed time. His first appeal was disposed of by giving him opportunity of inspecting the file.
8. Written submission dated 24.02.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on record which states that the Appellant had filed an RTI application dated 10.04.2023 seeking information regarding Pest Control Worker in SHO, Mumbai, which was replied to by the CPIO vide letter dated 30.05.2023. Subsequently, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.06.2023, which was disposed of by the FAA vide order dated 30.06.2023. It is further submitted that the Appellant had earlier filed a Second Appeal which was heard by the Commission on 27.12.2024 and the Commission had passed a final decision vide File No. CIC/INAVY/A/2023/137772 dated 03.01.2025, thereby disposing of the matter.
Page 4 of 6Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records and written submissions notes that the RTI application dated 10.04.2024 filed by the Appellant seeks information which is substantially similar to the information sought earlier in his RTI application dated 10.04.2023. The Commission notes that the said earlier RTI application had already been responded to by the CPIO vide reply dated 30.05.2023 and the matter was subsequently adjudicated by the Commission in Second Appeal No. CIC/INAVY/A/2023/137772 vide decision dated 03.01.2025.
In this regard, the Commission observes that filing of repetitive RTI applications seeking identical or substantially similar information, which has already been replied to and adjudicated upon, leads to unnecessary burden on the public authority and the Commission. The RTI Act is meant to promote transparency and access to information and not to be used as a tool for repeatedly seeking the same information. The Appellant should refrain from filing repetitive RTI applications on the same subject matter in future.
In this context, a reference is made to the decision of Commission in Decision no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014 wherein it was held as under:
"No scope for repeating under RTI Act
20. The Commission infers from the above that though RTI Act, did not specifically provide as a ground of refusing the information, it is implied from the objective and various provisions of RTI Act, that right of citizen to information is limited to one time and does not extend to repetition of request for that directly or indirectly"
Moreover, the Commission would like to place its reliance to the OM No. 1/18/2011-IR of DoP&T dated 16.09.2011 and the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011 wherein it was held as under:
"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 public Page 5 of 6 authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
However, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the respondent CPIO, Captain Gaurav Mahajan, for not attending the hearing and instead deputing a UDC to represent the matter before the Commission, without furnishing any written authorization or authority letter on record, with the directions to remain cautious in future in this regard while dealing with RTI matters.
Therefore, the Commission is of the considered view that the issues raised in the present appeal have already been adjudicated earlier and no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (सं जीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) date: 06.03.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Col Prabhat Kumar) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
1. The CPIO HQ, Western Naval Command 5th Floor, Noorbhoy Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai-400001
2. Sh. Dhanaji Vishnu Khavare Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)