Central Information Commission
Mohit Agrawal vs Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Ahmedabad ... on 15 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCEAB/A/2022/664974
MOHIT AGRAWAL ......अपीलकता/ Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Deputy Commissioner, Office of
Principal Chief Commissioner,
RTI Cell, Central GST Zone,
Central GST Bhavan, Ambawadi,
Near Polytechnic College,
Ahmedabad-380015, Gujarat. ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/09/2023
Date of Decision : 14/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/07/2022
CPIO replied on : 11/08/2022
First appeal filed on : 21/08/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 19/09/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"Honorable Chief Commissioner, Ahmedabad, CGST Zone is requested to provide following information to me under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. The information is being sought in respect of the entire Ahmedabad, CGST Zone including the offices falling under the Jurisdiction of Ahmedabad, CGST Zone. It is requested that the reply be provided through online portal only since it shall save unnecessary expenditure on postal stamps and printing of papers.
a. Please inform the number of Joint Commissioners (JC)/ Additional Commissioners (ADC) working in each Commissionerate and Zonal Office (CCO) under Ahmedabad, CGST Zone for the period from 05.11.2020 to 31.03.2021. Data may be provided in terms of Sanctioned Strength and working strength of all officers posted in Ahmedabad, CGST Zone.
b. Please provide the copy of work distribution among the JC/ ADCs for each Commissionerate for above period.
c. Please inform whether there was any change in charge distribution of JC/ ADCs during the period from 05.11.2020 to 31.03.2021 by Chief Commissioner's office or by Ahmedabad. South Commissionerate. If yes, kindly provide the copy of Office Order redistributing the charges of JC/ ADCs.
d. Please provide me the copy of note sheet on which decision was taken by Chief Commissioner/ Pr Commissioner/ Commissioner for redistribution of charges in respect of office order at para (c) above.
e. Please inform name of Commissionerate under Ahmedabad, CGST Zone which has been entrusted with the work of DLC Section in respect of legal matter of the entire Gujarat Zone. Please also inform the name of ADC, who was looking after this charge for the period from 05.11.2020 to 22.03.2021.
f. Please inform name of Commissionerate under Ahmedabad, CGST Zone which has been entrusted with the handling of administrative work viz. Drawing of Salary; sanction of medical, TA bills etc. in respect of Chief Commissioner office and officers posted in Directorates against the strength of Chief Commissioner office. Please also 2 inform the name of ADC. who was looking after this charge for the period from 05.11.2020 to 22.03.2021.
g. Please inform whether during the period from 05.11.2020 to 22.03.2021, Pr Commissioner, Ahmedabad South requested the Chief Commissioner to post at least one more ADC/ JC in Ahmedabad, South Commissionerate. Copy of letter may be provided.
h. Please inform the decision taken by the Chief Commissioner on receipt of the letter. The copy of Note sheet on which decision in the matter was taken be provided.
i. Please inform whether there was direction by the then Chief Commissioner, Ahmedabad Zone to all officers under that Zone not to avail any leave during the period from January 2021 to March 2021. Copy of such direction, if it existed, be provided.
j. Please inform whether any WhatsApp group was formed including Chief Commissioner and other senior officers of the Zone for dissemination of official information and compliances thereof.
k. Please inform whether, in terms of CCS Conduct Rules; such directions issued on WhatsApp constitute written directions.
l. Please inform the relevant provision of CCS Conduct Rules, which mandates that subordinate officers are bound by written directions of supervisory officers.
m. Please provide me the details of all officers at the level of Joint Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Commissioner, Pr. Commissioner and Chief Commissioner, who availed any kind of leave including Casual Leave, Earned Leave, Commuted Leave, Medical leave etc. during the period from 01.01.2021 to 31.03.2021. The same may be provided in tabular form indicating the nature of leave with the duration of such leave in respect of each officer.
n. Please inform the number and name of officers from the Ahmedabad Zone, who were deputed to Honourable Election Commission of India for election duty as Election Expenditure observer during the period from 01.01.2021 to 31.03.2021.
o. Please inform the number of officers out of above at para (n), who represented for exemption from duty to the CCO Office.
3p. Please provide the copy of representation made by officers at para o above. q. Please inform the name of officer whose representation was sent to CBIC/ Election Commission for consideration. Copy of note sheet wherein such decision taken may be provided.
r. Please inform the name of officer whose representation was not considered to be sent to CBIC/ Election Commission for consideration. Copy of note sheet wherein such decision taken may be provided.
s. One representation from exemption of duty was provided by Mr Mohit Agrawal vide his letter dated 16.03.2021. Please inform whether his representation was sent for consideration. Copy of note sheet wherein such decision taken may be provided.
t. After exemption from duty in respect of Mr Mohit Agrawal; please inform whether any direction was issued by the Chief Commissioner Office, not to send any representation without following proper channel. Please provide a copy of same.
u. Please inform whether Mr Mohit Agrawal applied for four days Casual Leave on 16.03.2021 to the Pr. Commissioner. Please provide a copy of the same.
v. Please inform whether there was any direction by the Chief Commissioner not to grant the leave, including on the dissemination tool of official directions on WhatsApp group.
w. Please inform whether Mr Mohit Agrawal applied again for four days Casual Leave to Pr. Commissioner, Ahmedabad, South on 18.03.2021 giving a representation for reasoning behind his request. Copy of same may be provided.
x. Please inform the provision of law, which restricts the citation of official directions/ internal directions in request for leave or representation before the supervisory authority.
y. Please inform the provision of law, which restricts the citation of official directions issued on WhatsApp used for dissemination of official information in request for leave or representation before the supervisory authority.
4z. Please inform the action taken subsequently by Pr. Commissioner, Ahmedabad South/ Chief Commissioner, CGST Zone, Ahmedabad, in respect of leave letter dated 18.03.2021 by Mr. Mohit Agrawal. Copy of the relevant note sheet be provided.
aa. Please inform whether there was finding by any office under Chief Commissioner, Ahmedabad, CGST Zone or any other office to the effect that this Leave Application dated 18.03.2021 was circulated on social ie. WhatsApp. Please provide a copy of the document/ evidence based upon which such finding was made.
bb. Please inform whether there was finding by any office under Chief Commissioner, Ahmedabad, CGST Zone or any other office to the effect that this Leave Application dated 18.03.2021 was circulated on social by Mr Mohit Agrawal ie the applicant. Please provide a copy of the document/ evidence based upon which such finding was made.
cc. Please inform whether explanation from Mr Mohit Agrawal was sought in this matter by Pr. Commissioner, Ahmedabad, South vide his letter dated 23.03.2021, which was replied by him vide his letter dated 30.03.2021.
dd. Please inform what action was taken by Pr. Commissioner, Ahmedabad, South after reply dated 30.03.2021 in the matter. Copy of note sheet for such decision be provided.
ee. Please inform whether there was any other occasion in Ahmedabad South Commissionerate when leave was denied to Mr Mohit Agrawal. Please provide a copy of the Leave Applications and the reasons for denial of leave.
ff. Mr Mohit Agrawal applied for EL vide Eoffice reference number E- 633459. Please provide the reasons for non-sanction of the leave by the competent authority. Copy of note sheet may be provided.
gg. Mr Mohit Agrawal applied for CL vide Eoffice reference number E- 773391. Please provide the reasons for non-sanction of the leave by the competent authority. Copy of note sheet may be provided.
hh. Please inform whether there has been any instance during the period from 05.11.2020 to 31.03.2021, wherein, Mr Mohit Agrawal, the then ADC/ Ahmedabad 5 has shown indiscipline or misdemeanour by not ensuring the confidentiality of internal office communications.
i. If so, please provide the detail of such instance. ii. If so, please inform what evidence/ document was found in support of such claim.
iii. If so, please provide what action was initiated against the officer for such violation."
The CPIO furnished a to the appellant on 11.08.2022 stating as under:
"a. Date wise record of No. of ADC/JC working in CGST Ahmedabad Zone is not maintained. However, as per monthly disposition list maintained by this office, the number of ADC/JC working in each Commissionerate of CGST Ahmedabad Zone (including PCCO, Ahmedabad Zone) from November-2020 toMarch-2021 is enclosed.
In case of PCCO
(i) In Dec 2020, Shri Nitin Jain promoted to Joint Commissioner and posted in-situ from 01.01.2021. Further, Shri R.K. Tiwari, JC was posted in PCCO vide establishment order 69/2020 dated 04.12.2020 with additional Charge of CGST Ahmedabad South Commissionerate
(ii) Shri Nitin Jain, JC was relieved on 15.03.2021 to join IFSCA, Gandhinagar on deputation basis.
b) Information related to the work distribution of Additional/Joint Commissioner of other Commissionerate is done and maintained with the respective Commissionerate.
c) Change in charge distribution of ADC/JC is done by respective Commissionerate.
(d) The information sought is in connection with point (c) is maintained by the respective Commissionerate.
e) Pertains to CGST Ahmedabad South Commissionerate.6
f) CGST Ahmedabad South Commissionerate has been entrusted with the handling of administrative work viz. Drawing of Salary, sanction of medical, TA bills etc. in respect of Chief Commissioner office and officers posted in Directorates against the strength of Chief Commissioner office. Details regarding charge distribution are maintained by respective Commissionerate.
g) Letter dated 31.12.2020 issued by the Pr. Commissioner CGST Ahmedabad South Commissionerate regarding posting of Additional/Joint.
h) Not on record.
(i), (j) No such information available.
k), l) The CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 are available in public domain.
m) Such information cannot be disclosed because it contains personal information of an individual and not in larger public interest and thus attracting section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
n) As per available record and vide letter No. 464/ECI/LET/EEM/Exp.Obs/ EEPS/2021/Vol.I dated 06-03-2021- 04 officers of Ahmedabad Zone were deputed to the Election Commission as Expenditure observer.
1. Shri Marut Tripathi
2. Shri Milan Kumar Singh
3. Shri Joginder Singh
4. Shri Manish Kumar Chavda
o) One officer.
p) Such information cannot be disclosed because it contains personal information of an individual and not in larger public interest and thus attracting section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
q) Such information cannot be disclosed because it contains personal information of an individual and not in larger public interest and thus attracting section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005
r) , s) As per records not available 7
t) An advisory dated 25.03.2021 for strict adherence was issued by the Chief Commissioner Office, CGST Ahmedabad Zone (copy of the advisory is enclosed).
u) Does not pertain to this office.
v) As per records not available.
w) Does not pertain to this office.
x) As per the CCS (Conduct) Rules,1964 which are available in public domain y) As per the CCS (Conduct) Rules,1964 which are available in public domain z) Such information cannot be disclosed because it contains personal information of an individual and not in larger public interest and thus attracting section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
aa) There was a finding regarding circulation of leave application on social media. Document/evidence regarding such finding cannot be shared because it contains personal details of other officers thus attracting section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
bb) There was a finding regarding circulation of leave application on social media. Document/evidence regarding such finding cannot be shared because it contains personal details of other officers thus attracting section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Cc, dd, ee, ff, gg) Does not pertain to this office.
hh) No information in the matter is available."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.08.2022. FAA's order, dated 19.09.2022, held as under:
"In view of the above facts, I allow the appeal in respect of point no. b, c, d, n, r, s, z, aa, and bb and reject in respect of point o, m, p and q as mentioned above."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
8"In my RTI application, I had sought information under the provisions of RTI Act 2005, which was provided only partially by the CPIO. Certain information has been denied by the CPIO citing irrelevant reasons. Information in respect of points b, c, d was denied unjustly on the ground information relating to the same is maintained/ available with the respective Commissionerates. Information in respect of points n, o, r and s was intentionally provided false and incorrect in defiance of provisions of RTI Act and the records. Information in respect of points m, p, q, z, aa and bb was unjustly denied on the basis that such information being personal information of an individual and not in larger public interest thus attracting Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. On filing appeal, the Appellate Authority allowed appeal in respect of point nos. b, c, d, n, r, s, z, aa, and bb and r but rejected the information in respect of points o, m, p and q unjustly on the basis that such information being personal information of an individual and not in larger public interest thus attracting Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
xxx
8. I have only sought for the leave details of all officers at the level of Joint Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Commissioner, Pr. Commissioner and Chief Commissioner, who availed any kind of leave including Casual Leave, Earned Leave, Commuted Leave, Medical leave etc. during the period from 01.01.2021 to 31.03.2021. All officers have been were working as a public authority and there was a direction on official group on whatsapp not to provide any leave for this duration. It is very much material a question of public interest and also as an individual officer to know whether such directions were followed in toto or not. I have not asked the reasons for leave; the location of officers during the leave; copy of leave application; records of finances if any travel done by these officers at that time etc. I have only asked for the details of leaves taken and granted by the sanctioning authorities. However, Appellate Authority was requested that even despite the specific request for only seeking the leave details; the same appears the violation of privacy, the reasons may be provided to me as to how does it constitute personal information and in such case, the information may be provided in terms of details of leaves in terms of designation only while obliterating the names of officers. However, Appellate Authority neither discussed how it amounted to violation of privacy nor provided even the obliterated information without mentioning the specific names of officers."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-9
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Pankaj Singh, Dy. Commissioner & CPIO present through video conference.
The CPIO submitted that since most of the queries sought for factual replies, all of the permissible information has been provided to the Appellant and even in compliance of the FAA's order, a reply has been provided on 18.10.2022, as has been already placed before the Commission vide his written submission dated 01.09.2023, duly endorsed to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission upon perusing the enormity of the RTI queries and the length and breadth of the grounds of the Second Appeal observes that the Appellant appears to have misinterpreted the scope and ambit of the RTI Act or is largely not well acquainted with the technicalities of the Act in terms of what to ask, how to ask and most importantly, what to expect from the CPIO(s) & FAA in exercise of his right to information.
In other words, the instant RTI Application does not strictly even conform to the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has raised queries or statements that are in the form of conjecture, seeking answers to "whether" questions or requires the CPIO to form an opinion based on records or interpret the records. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of 10 CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"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.........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." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, 11 logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) As regards the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act with respect to the information related to the third parties is concerned, the attention of the Appellant is further drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information"
envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and 12 conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Further, on the aspect of larger public interest, the Commission places reliance on a catena of judgments of the superior Courts on the import of "public interest" as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:
"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, 13 particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Since there is no material on record to ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the third parties in any of the above referred contexts, the Commission finds no reason to order for any relief in the matter.
The other aspect of the said case is the sheer magnitude of the information that has been sought for by the Appellant rendering it as an impractical demand for information. Pertinently so, the RTI Application is not in consonance with Rule 3 of the RTI Rules, 2012 which provides as under:
"An application under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, excluding annexures, containing address of the Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant:."
In this context, the judgment of the Apex Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (supra) records the following observations against impractical demands for information under the RTI Act as under:
14"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 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.' 15 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.' And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...xxx 'This Court is also of the view 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.' While routinely adverting to the foregoing dicta, the Commission in an amplitude of cases have observed that often 'RTI Applicant(s) grossly misconceive the idea of exercising their Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality and that the misuse of RTI Act is a well-recognized bane and citizens should take note that their right to information is not after all absolute.' Now, despite the infirmities noted in the RTI Application, the CPIO has provided replies and information that is above and beyond his statutory duty under the RTI Act.
Adverting to the foregoing observations, no action is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 16 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 17