Central Information Commission
Sanjay Bhaty vs Kandla Port Trust on 3 July, 2019
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/103257/SD
Sanjay Bhaty .... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Kandla Port Trust,
Administrative Office,
Post Box No. 50,
Gandhidham Kutch,
Gujarat - 370201 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 03/12/2016
CPIO replied on : 28/02/2017 & 09/01/2017
First appeal filed on : 04/03/2017
First Appellate Authority order : No Order
Second Appeal dated : 20/11/2017
Date of Hearing : 01/07/2019
Date of Decision : 01/07/2019
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 32 points regarding the charge sheets issued by Kandla Port Trust to various officials related to dredging activities and other varied subject matters.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present through VC.1
Respondent: A. Krishnan, Sr. Dy. CAO & CPIO, Kandla Port Trust, Administrative Office, Gandhidham Kutch present through VC.
Commission remarked at the outset based on the number of Appeals of the Appellant heard previously by this bench as well as four other Appeals being heard simultaneously with the instant case that the Appellant is clearly misusing the channel of RTI Act. It was observed that the Appellant appears to be harnessing various grudges against Kandla Port Trust on account of his service related matters and in the process is harassing the public authorities by filing mostly cumbersome and repetitive RTI Applications.
Commission further observed from the perusal of facts on record that the instant RTI Application seeks information on a multitude of subject matters and does not conform to the 500 word limit prescribed under Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. Even further, most of the queries are outside the purview of Section 2(f) of RTI Act as Appellant has sought for unspecific information requiring interpretation and deduction of the CPIO and in some places the queries are not even coherent. Commission also expressed its displeasure over the fact that in his pursuit of filing such cumbersome RTI Applications, Appellant has even incorrectly numbered the queries of the RTI Application causing unwarranted confusion.
In view of the foregoing observations, Commission asked the CPIO to comment on certain limited paras of the RTI Application (paras 12,14,15,16 of page no.2 and paras 19, 20, 21 & 24 of page no.3) which although qualified under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, but were prima-facie observed to have not been replied to appropriately by the CPIO.
CPIO submitted that for information sought at paras 14, 15 and 16 of the RTI Application, the relevant documents were voluminous, and Appellant was asked to submit Rs. 8000/- as photocopying charges, but he has not paid the same till date.
Appellant argued that since the CPIO did not specify the documents for which such exorbitant fee was being sought, he did not pay the same. At this juncture, Commission also pointed out to the parties that information sought vide these paras pertains to the wife of the Appellant, who is effectively a third party and therefore no information can be parted with by the CPIO without seeking the consent of the wife of the Appellant as per Section 8(1)(j) read in conjunction with Section 11 of the RTI Act.2
File No : CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/103257/SD Further, with regard to paras 19, 20 & 21 of page no.2 of the RTI Application, CPIO submitted that available information has been provided on 16.01.2017 and for para 24 therein, Appellant was requested to visit the office for inspection of records and identify the specific documents required by him.
Appellant stated that he has not received any reply from the CPIO on the aforesaid paras.
Decision In view of the hearing proceedings, Commission directs the CPIO to provide specific, available and relevant information on para 12 of page no.2 and paras 19,20,21 of page no.3 of the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost. In the event, information is not available in parts or as a whole on either of the said paras, a categorical reply to this effect shall be provided to the Appellant against the relevant para.
Now, with respect to paras 14, 15 and 16 of page no.2 of the RTI Application, CPIO is directed to seek the consent of the third party i.e Rupa Bhaty, as per Section 11 of the RTI Act within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The third party shall be allowed 10 days from the date of receipt of consent notice to make her representation. Upon receipt of consent, CPIO shall provide an opportunity of inspection of records to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to him telephonically and in writing. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant, will be provided free of cost upto 50 pages and for pages beyond this limit, prescribed fees shall be charged as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012. In the event, consent of third party is not received within the stipulated time or the third party refuses to the disclosure; CPIO shall intimate the denial of information on these paras as per Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act to the Appellant upon expiry of the 10 days' time period as mentioned above.
Similarly, for para 24 of page no.3 of the RTI Application, CPIO shall again afford an opportunity of inspection to the Appellant in the manner as directed in the preceding para. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant, will be provided free of cost upto 50 pages and for pages beyond this limit, prescribed fees shall be charged as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012.3
The aforesaid directions should be complied by the CPIO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission.
As regards the misuse of RTI Act observed by the Commission during hearing, it appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality. However, adverting to cases such as this where the intention of the RTI Applicant is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that it is to only pester the public authorities; the notion of misuse of RTI Act well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments is relevant such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"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 4 File No : CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/103257/SD of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 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 the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."
In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto."
The aforesaid dicta essentially proves that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized bane and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not after all absolute. Keeping this in view, Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काशिस हा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140/ [email protected] हरो सादसेन,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 6