Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Drrajesh Kumar Singh vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 14 September, 2015

                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
   (Room No.315, B­Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)

                Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)

                                  Information Commissioner

                                      CIC/RM/C/2013/000342­SA
                                      CIC/RM/C/2013/000344­SA
                                      CIC/RM/C/2013/000345­SA
                                      CIC/RM/C/2013/000349­SA
                                      CIC/RM/C/2013/000351­SA
                                      CIC/RM/C/2013/000352­SA
                                      CIC/RM/C/2013/000353­SA
                                      CIC/RM/C/2013/000354­SA
                          (Video Conference - Bhadohi & Varanasi)
                                                        
                   Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. DAV PG College, Varanasi

                                  Important Dates and time taken:
      CIC/RM/C/2013/000342­SA          RTI Application: 16­1­2013           Complaint: 9­7­2013
      CIC/RM/C/2013/000344­SA          RTI Application: 26­1­2013           Complaint: 9­7­2013
      CIC/RM/C/2013/000345­SA          RTI Application: 26­1­2013           Complaint: 9­7­2013
      CIC/RM/C/2013/000349­SA          RTI Application: 11­1­2013           Complaint: 9­7­2013
      CIC/RM/C/2013/000351­SA          RTI Application: 15­1­2013           Complaint: 9­7­2013
      CIC/RM/C/2013/000352­SA          RTI Application: 20­1­2013           Complaint: 9­7­2013
      CIC/RM/C/2013/000353­SA          RTI Application: 26­1­2013           Complaint: 9­7­2013
      CIC/RM/C/2013/000354­SA          RTI Application: 22­1­2013           Complaint: 9­7­2013




DATE OF HEARING:  10­09­2015    DATE OF DECISION: 14­09­2015


Result:  Rejected - Mis­use of RTI


Parties present:    


      The   complainant   is   present   for   video­conference   at   NIC   centre,   Bhadohi.   The   Public 

Authority represented by  Mr. Satish, CPIO is present for video conference from NIC Centre, 

Varanasi.  The Complainant had filed the above 8(eight) complaints against the same Public 

Authority and hence they are taken up together for hearing today. 


FACTS: 

CIC/RM/C/2013/000342­SA,44,45,49,51,52,53,54 - Eight files Page 1

2.  CIC/RM/C/2013/000342­SA     ­  Complainant   by   his   RTI   application   had   sought   for  information regarding rejection of complaint of Dr Jain and Dr Singh by Inquiry Committee held  on 20.06.2012.  He wanted action taken against the complainant for making a fake complaint,  whether there is any punishment for the same and copy of ATR if any etc. Having received no  information,   Complainant   made   first   appeal.   Claiming   non­furnishing   of   information,  Complainant approached commission.

3.  CIC/RM/C/2013/000344­SA ­     Complainant by his RTI application had sought for name  and address of the households whom the research scholar have surveyed for the Ph.D thesis  work titled "Problem and Prospects of Micro Insurance in India : A Case Study of Eastern U.P".  Having received no information, Complainant made first appeal. Claiming non­furnishing of  information, Complainant approached commission.

4.  CIC/RM/C/2013/000345­SA   ­      Complainant   by   his   RTI   application   had   sought   for  information regarding minor project sanctioned to him from UGC from which he wanted to  know whether the amount typed in letter was Rs 50000 or Rs 60000, details of exact date and  time   when   call   was   given   by   Mrs   Sonal   Kapoor   etc.     Having   received   no   information,  Complainant   made   first   appeal.   Claiming   non­furnishing   of   information,   Complainant  approached the Commission.

5. CIC/RM/C/2013/000349­SA ­    Complainant by his RTI application sought for the date and  cheque   number   along   with   the   exact   amount   issued   to   him   on   his   minor   project   titled  "Sustainanbility   of   SHGs­Bank   Linkage   programme   in   India   funded   by   UGC   etc.   Having  received   no   information,   Complainant   made   first   appeal.   Claiming   non­furnishing   of  information, Complainant approached the Commission.

6. CIC/RM/C/2013/000351­SA ­ Complainant by his RTI application has sought for information  regarding Career Oriented Course - Risk and Insurance Management of the College.   He  CIC/RM/C/2013/000342­SA,44,45,49,51,52,53,54 - Eight files Page 2 wanted to know the provision of UGC guidelines regarding utilization of seed money, how  much fund has been raised from other sources of Income till date etc. Having received no  information,   Complainant   made   first   appeal.   Claiming   non­furnishing   of   information,  Complainant approached the Commission.

7.  CIC/RM/C/2013/000352­SA ­     Complainant by his RTI application had sought to know  whether Principal was entertaining causal Leave/Earned Leave/Medical Leave or duty leave  during 12.01.2013 to 19.01.2013 and if he was on leave, kindly explain the purpose of leave  granted to Principal, whether the attendance register of teachers of College indicates the time  of arrival and time of leaving the college etc. Having received no information, Complainant  made   first   appeal.   Claiming   non­furnishing   of   information,   Complainant   approached   the  Commission.

8.  CIC/RM/C/2013/000353­SA     ­        Complainant   by   his   RTI   application   had   sought   for  information regarding Career Oriented Course.   He wanted to know the provision of UGC  guidelines   regarding   utilization   of   seed   money,   etc.     Having   received   no   information,  Complainant   made   first   appeal.   Claiming   non­furnishing   of   information,   Complainant  approached the Commission.

9. CIC/RM/C/2013/000354­SA ­ Complainant by his RTI application had sought for copy of the  advertisement for various faculty positions filled between 07­12/2011etc.  Having received no  information,   Complainant   made   first   appeal.   Claiming   non­furnishing   of   information,  Complainant approached the Commission.

DECISION: 

CIC/RM/C/2013/000342­SA CIC/RM/C/2013/000344­SA CIC/RM/C/2013/000345­SA CIC/RM/C/2013/000349­SA CIC/RM/C/2013/000351­SA CIC/RM/C/2013/000352­SA CIC/RM/C/2013/000342­SA,44,45,49,51,52,53,54 - Eight files Page 3 CIC/RM/C/2013/000353­SA CIC/RM/C/2013/000354­SA

10.     Both the parties made their submissions through video conference from Bhadohi and  Varanasi respectively.  The Complainant says that he had been working as Assistant Professor  in the respondent college and his services were terminated for no reason.   He is seeking  information   through   RTI   applications   from   the   respondent   authority   and   as   they   are   not  furnishing information, he is filing complaints with the Commission.   When the Commission  asked the complainant as to the number of RTI applications/second appeals he had filed so far  on this issue, the complainant hesitatingly said that he had filed about 20 RTI applications and  the same number of second appeals.  

11.         The   respondent   authority   submitted   that   the   complainant   had   filed   nearly   500   RTI  applications, each application with 20 RTI questions on the same subject or in a modified way  so as to harass them and take revenge for terminating his services in accordance with the  procedure. He had been furnished with the Inquiry Report and other related documents.  Still  he is not satisfied.   He has been black­mailing the College.   He had already challenged his  termination in the High Court and they are defending the case in the High Court. 

12.   The Commission noticed that the Complainant's RTI requests are motivated, ambiguous,  invade privacy, frivolous and vindictive.  

13.       Having  heard  the  submissions  and  perused  the  record,   the  Commission  directs   the  respondent authority to prepare a comprehensive note on the number of RTI applications filed  by the complainant, and the responses given by them, including  in the 1 st and 2nd appeals and  send the same to the Commission after uploading it into their official web­site, with a copy to  the complainant, within one month from   the date of receipt of this order.   The Commission  also admonishes the complainant for misusing the RTI Act, and using the same   for taking  personal vengeance against the Public Authority and he is warned not to repeat the same.  

13.    All the above 8(eight) complaints are rejected.   

CIC/RM/C/2013/000342­SA,44,45,49,51,52,53,54 - Eight files Page 4  (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar.

Address of the parties :

1. The CPIO under RTI Act, Secretary& Manager,  DAV Post Graduate College, Maharshi Dayanand Marg,  Naharpura, Ausangan, VARANASI­221001 (UP)
2. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Shri Virendra Pratap Singh, Joginaka (Kathauta), Gopiganj, SRN Bhadohi (UP) PIN: 221303 CIC/RM/C/2013/000342­SA,44,45,49,51,52,53,54 - Eight files Page 5