Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Mormugao Port Trust on 10 May, 2021
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391
In the matter of:
Samir Sardana ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Mormugao Port Trust,
Administrative Office,
Headland, Sada, Goa.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 23.08.2018 FA : 11.10.2018 SA : 20.12.2018
CPIO Reply: Not on
FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 26.02.2021
Record
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Samir Sardana participated in the hearing through video
conferencing from NIC Dehradun.
Respondent: Shri Guruling R. Gani, representative of CPIO and Dy. Chief
Engineer and Shri Satish Honnakatte, CPIO and Chief Mechanical Engineer
participated in the hearing through video conferencing from NIC South Goa.
Page 1 of 34
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 23.08.2018 seeking information as under:Page 2 of 34
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 Page 3 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 Page 4 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.10.2018, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the respondent. He also requested the bench to award compensation.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The Appellant stated that no information has been provided by the Respondent till date. Upon queried by the Commission to elaborate what information has been sought by him in the instant RTI Application, instead of comprehending the query of the Commission, the Appellant tried to mislead by stating different facts altogether such as: that the First Appellate Authority has not adjudicated the First Appeal; despite sending several emails to the First Appellate Authority explaining the factum of non-disposal of the First Appeals etc. However, he alleged that there is a submission from the CPIO, which is unclear and unspecific.
The Respondent submitted that a reply was provided to the Appellant on 12.09.2018. He further submitted that the Appellant has also admitted the fact that the Respondent has provided reply and requested the Commission to advise the Appellant to desist from making false, frivolous and baseless allegations against the Respondent public authority. He furthermore submitted that the Appellant was also informed vide letter dated 28.08.2018 regarding the transfer of the RTI Application. He added that on 19.09.2018, the Appellant was yet again informed by Shri S.K.S. Hegde, CPIO and Chief Mechanical Engineer, Mechanical Page 5 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 Engineering Department has categorically provided the available information to the Appellant regarding information pertaining to "AUDIT TYPE" and with regard to the information pertaining to "PPP and BOT", the Appellant was informed that inspection of concession agreement entered by the MPT with the Adani and correspondence files can be carried out during office hours. He stoutly refuted the allegations of Appellant that no information has been provided in response to the instant RTI Application.
The Appellant interjected to state that he has received partial information but not in full. He further stated that he wants to challenge the reply provided by the Respondent as incorrect and seeking his citizenship proof as illegal.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri S. Vishvanathan, CPIO, Engineering Mechanical Department vide letter dated 19.02.2021, wherein he has stated as under:
"1. On perusal of the aforesaid notice, it is noted that the Appellant has sought following grounds for the prayer or relief under 4.1 Section D. The PIO has not replied at all to the RTI application and The FAA has not passed the order on the 1st Appeal related to this RTI Application In this context, it is submitted that the information furnished by the Appellant is incorrect. CME & CPIO for the Engineering Mechanical Department vide his communication under reference no. CME/PD/I(6)/2515 dated 19.09.2018 (a copy of the same here annexed as ANNEXURE-I) furnished the information with regards to Application No. 3 to the Appellant. The receipt of the letter dated 19.09.2018 has been acknowledged by the Appellant itself under Section E, 5.1.1.1.2.
2. From the Application no. 3, the information regarding PPP projects was pertaining to Engineering Mechanical Department and the other queries/information sought was pertaining to different CPIOs/departments. The information sought by the Appellant pertaining to Engineering Mechanical Department is as follows:-Page 6 of 34
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391
a) PIO to allow the applicant to inspect and photograph the PPP and BOT Agreements with any part of the Adani and the Jindal Group with respect to operations of any berth/jetty or for any new or current capital expansion at MPT or Betul (executed in the last 10 years).
3. Applicant was then requested vide letter no. CME/PD/I(6)/2717, dated 05/10/2018 to furnish his proof of identity towards Indian citizenship for verification before furnishing the RTI information sought by him, for which no reply/ identity proof was received by the Department till date.
4. Whereas the present Appellant referred an appeal under section 19(1) before the 1st Appellant Authority against the decision of this CPIO for delaying the information sought at sr. no. 2 and as such the necessary information may be provided free of cost. The CPIO has sought consent from M/s Adani in terms of Section 11 of RTI Act as it amounts to third party information. Adani vide letter dated 09/11/2018 conveyed that, as per Section 11 of RTI Act 2005, Port should not provide any information to the appellant. Copy of the letter enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE II.
5. Dy. Chairman & First Appellate Authority after going through the submission made by this CPIO was pleased to disposed off the said appeal vide his Order/Communication No. CME/PD/RTI/3111 dated 01.11.2018 (a copy of the same here annexed as ANNEXURE-III) holding that "the information which was in the public domain was provided to you by the CPIO. However, the information in respect of Inspection & photography of the Concession Agreement (CA) entered by MPT with Adani and correspondence files can be carried out, during office hours with prior intimation and necessary payment for taking photographs of the relevant details required by you."
8. Therefore, the CPIO for Engineering Mechanical Department prays before the Central Information Commissioner that the information as admissible under the RTI Act which is to be disclosed, have been promptly furnished as and when sought for and complied.
9. Therefore, it is prayed that:
(a) By an order of the Hon'ble Commission the Appeal preferred against this CPIO for the Engineering Mechanical Department be dismissed with costs:
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Anant V.P. Chodnekar, CPIO/Finance Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Finance Department vide letter dated 15.02.2021, wherein he has stated as under:Page 7 of 34
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 "1. Earlier on receipt of the CIC notice for conducting the hearing in the Complaint registered under File No. CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 dated 29.10.2020 before Hon'ble Information Commissioner Mr. Suresh Chandra on 27.11.2020 at 12.30 hours the Respondent herein had filed his detailed submissions dated 17.11.2020 both by online link provided and also another hard copy through registered speed post whereas the said hearing was cancelled due to some administrative reasons of the CIC. Now, I have received the copy of the notice dated 29.01.2021 afresh enclosing therewith the memo of the Appeal filed under section 19 of the RTI Act. In accordance with the directions issued at paragraph 4 of the said notice dated 29.01.2021, this Respondent makes the following submission.
2. Mormugao Port Trust is a body Corporate under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and provides various services to the Port Users and the Nation for facilitating import-export trade and commerce in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There are seven independent and separate departments in the Mormugao Port Trust, each having distinct activities to perform under their control and the activities of the finance department are looked after by the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer (FA&CAO). Undersigned has taken the charge of the Finance Department with effect from 08.11.2019 consequent to the transfer of my predecessor Shri Vinayak Rao B.S. to the New Mangalore Port Trust as per the order of the Central Government.
3. The above named Appellant/Complainant had filed around 08 nos. different Appeals under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 (Diary No. CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637355, 637402, 637389, 637410, 637391, 637392 & 637409) and further another 04 nos. Complaints under Section 18 of the Act (CIC/MPOTR/C/2018/637414, 637415, 637419 & 637379) and the contents of all the said appeals as well as all the complaints appears to be the same and completely mixed up and written in a most vague form, completely difficult for any of the CPIO's of Mormugao Port Trust or any independent department to separate and to respond in respect to the matter relating to its functioning.
4. From the records, it is observed that, the present Appellant/Complainant had submitted 4 application together under section 2(f), 2(j) and 6(1) of the RTI Act for seeking information to the Office of Finance Department on 23.08.2018 when my predecessor, Shri Vinayaka Rao B.S. was the HoD & CPIO of the Finance Department. The information sought or the issues raised in the each of the application were numerous and largely concerning the functioning of the various other CPIO's and departments whereas the subject covering this Finance Department was to the minimum extent found only in his Application No.1 and No.2 (partly).Page 8 of 34
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391
5. Accordingly, the then FA&CAO & CPIO for Finance Department vide his covering letter No. FD/Est-1(45)2018/590 dated 28.08.2018 forwarded the copy of the Appellant's/Complainant's Application No.1, 2 & 4 to the CPIO for the Traffic Department to furnish the information concerning his department directly to the information seeker. The copy of the Application No.1 & 3 was sent to the CPIO for Mechanical Engineering Department with a similar request. And a copy of the Application No.2 transferred to the CPIO for Marine Department to respond to the extent pertaining to his department directly and another copy of the Application No.2 & 4 was sent to the CPIO for the General Administration Department for enabling all the concerned CPIO's to submit the information directly to the information seeker. While transferring the copies of the Applications, the then erstwhile CPIO for the Finance Department in his transfer communication as stated above has clearly mentioned that, the information pertaining to their respective departments to be furnished directly to the information seeker. As such the transfer was made under Section 6(3) of the Act and not under Section 5(4). Further, the six different covering letters addressed specifically to the concerned CPIO's enclosing therewith copies of the applications received from the Appellant categorically indicates that the information to be furnished directly to the Appellant. The dispatch clerk of this department while effecting the delivery of the 6 transfer letters to the within- named CPIO's with their correct official designations clubbed all delivered under one common outward No. FD/Est/1(45)/2018/590 dated 28.08.2018 which in no way affects the action taken or the purpose of the Act when those CPIO's are clearly identifiable with their designations and their departments on the said transfer letters and furthermore all the concerned CPIO's responded directly with the Appellant in respect of the material in their possession and control. The grievance set out by the present Appellant as regards writing of common outward number by the dispatch clerk does not hold any merit for creating dispute as all the transferee CPIO's given their respective feedback to the Appellant.
6. As said in the commencement part of the present submission that, some limited part queries of Application No.1 and No.2 were concerning this Finance Department and to a large extent the remaining queries/matter besides Application No.3 and 4 was entirely relating to the functioning of the other CPIO's/departments. The then CPIO for the Finance Department vide communication No. FA/B-13/2018/195 dated 18.09.2018 furnished the relevant information covered by the Appellant's Application No.2 to the fullest extent and a copy of the same is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-I.
7. Whereas the then CPIO for the Finance Department vide his communication No. FA/B-13/2018/194 dated 18.09.2018 agreed to furnish the remaining relevant information covered by item No. 4.1 in the Application No.2 and requested the present Appellant/Complainant to make arrangement for depositing the costs of Page 9 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 Rs. 230/- for supply of 115 pages of the information sought by him. A copy of the said communication dated 18.09.2018 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-II. And whereas the Appellant never deposited the notified fees or made any serious attempts to collect the information.
8. In the above said communication dated 18.09.2019 - ANNEXURE-II, a respectful statement was also made by the then CPIO for the Finance Department stating that, the information seeker may kindly provide a copy of document confirming his citizenship which the Appellant/Complainant was impliedly required to submit only at the time of payment of the costs/collection of the public information. The then CPIO for the Finance Department has made the statement most respectfully after viewing the media news that Mr. Samir Sardana apprehended by ATS Police at Vasco Railway Station and the copies of such news items numbers 05 pages are enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-III. In such a situation as explained herein above, without casting any stigma, the then CPIO for the Finance Department has respectfully agreed to part away the information to the information seeker after his providing the costs by showing his citizenship identity and the said statement was made in absolute good faith. Whereas it is the accepted and admitted position of the present complainant in para 8.1.5 his present complaint that, in the case where there is a reasonable doubt as to the citizenship of the applicant that the authority may seek proof of citizenship as held by the CIC in the case of Chanderkant Jamnadas Karira v/s Vice Presidents' Secretariat - CIC/WB/C/2009/9003521 dated 10.1.2010. The decision of the earlier CPIO for asking citizenship proof in the then prevailing situation justified whereas the present Complainant never furnished citizenship proof.
9. And whereas the Appellant failed even to deposit the costs and to collect the information sought and on the contrary through email dated 17.10.2018 lodged an Appeal before Shri Guruprasad Rai, Deputy Chairman & First Appellate Authority against the communication No. FA/B-13/2018/194 dated 18.09.2018 mixing the issues concerning other CPIO's and Department. Subsequently, the Complainant/Appellant made another 8 different appeals before the First Appellate Authority by consolidating the matter of all the CPIO's and pursued the same by sending communication by email dated 20.10.2018, 28.10.2018 and 01.11.2018, copies of the same are enclosed as ANNEXURE-IV collectively. And whereas the First Appellate Authority pleased to consider the various appeals together and disposed of the same vide his Common Order/Communication No. GAD/LB(46-RTI)/2018/2500 dated 05.11.2018 and a copy of the same is enclosed as ANNEXURE-V.
10. Now on merits, the memo of Appeal at para/serial no.2 under the heading, "coordinates of representation" suggests that, the present complaint is in the matter of his RTI request Application No.3 dated 23.08.2018, which was in fact Page 10 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 then transferred to the concerned CPIO's vide communication no. FD/Estt.1(45)2018/590 dated 28.08.2018 by the earlier CPIO for Finance Department and the copies of the same are annexed by the Complainant to his memo of complaint as Annexure-I. The information sought under the said Application No.4 was entirely concerning the functioning and within the absolute control of the independent CPIO's of the Traffic Department (partly), General Administration Department (partly) and Civil Engineering Department (partly), who had handled his request Application No.4 and had given their respective feedback and answers directly to the Complainant and no part of the said application no.4 was concerning the record or functioning of the CPIO for this Finance Department. Therefore, all the grounds set out and the prayers made in the Memo of Second Appeal by the present Appellant as regards the CPIO for the Finance Department are completely frivolous, vague and baseless and not sustainable.
11. In the light of the submissions made above, it is abundantly clear that, the then CPIO for the Finance Department has done his lawful duty to transfer the Complainant's Application No.3 to the concerned different independent CPIO's of Civil Engineering Departments and Mechanical Engineering Department and these CPIO's had furnished independent responses to the present Appellant. Further, the First Appellate Authority was considerate enough to entertain such jumbled up appeals and issued his order dated 05.11.2018 disposing off his all the first appeals together jointly (ANNEXURE-V).
12. The grounds and the reliefs set out by the present Appellant in his memo of Appeal are most vague, evasive and cryptic and the prayers made by the present Appellant for imposing punishment under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act is completely uncalled, unjust and improper. Further, the other vague prayers made by the present Appellant are unjustified and in the circumstances deserves to be condemned and rejected with warning to the Appellant.
13. Therefore, it is prayed that:
(a) By an order of the Hon'ble Commission the Appeal preferred against the CPIO for the Finance Department be dismissed; and
(b) Any other order may be issued by the Hon'ble Commission as deemed fit in the circumstances of the present case."Page 11 of 34
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 A written submission has been received by the Commission from the Appellant vide letter dated 07.11.2020, wherein he has stated as under:
"2. Coordinates of Representation 2.1. The CIC is to note the following, w.r.t the 2nd Appeal, for Case Reference No. CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED 4 APPLICATIONS IN PERSON AT THE OFFICE OF THE MPT GOA - NUMBERED AS APPLICATION NO.1 TO 4 THE CPIO OF MPT GOA DID NOT SEND ANY LETTER TO THE APPELLANT STATING THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS OF THE APPLICATIONS THE CPIO MADE 6 TRANSFER LETTERS WITH THE SAME LETTER REF.NO AND WITH THW RONG DATE OF RECEIPT OF RTI APPLICATION (ANNEXUER 1) THE TRANSFER LETTERS HAVE THE SAME LANGUAGE AND HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO MULTIPLE PIOs W/O STATING WHICH INFORMATION IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO WHICH PIO THERE HAVE BEEN MORE THAN 15 REPLIES FROM THE PIOs OF MPT GOA - AS LISTED IN THE 1ST APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT NOT EVEN 1 PIO RPEPLY FROM ANY PIO REFERES TO THE REPLY TO RTI APPLICATION NO.3 THE APPELLANT SENT A LETTER TO THE CPIO OF MPT GOA - REMINDING THE PIO THAT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FOR RTI APPLICATION NO.3 (ANNEXURE 2) AND NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM THE PIO THERE WERE 2 PIO REPLIED RECEIED BY THE APPELLAT WHERE NIL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT, AND THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO ANY RTI APPLICATION (ANNEXURE
3) - AND THEY COULD PERTAIN TO RTI APPLICATION NO.3, BUT IN ANY CASE NO INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE PIO THE APPELLANT FILED A 1ST APPEAL WITH THE FAA AND THE FAA PASSED NO ORDER THE FAA SENT A LETTER TO THE APELLANT DISPOSING 8 APPEALS W/O ANY REASON AND ASKED THE APPELLANT TO GO TO THE CIC (ANNEXURE 4) OUT OF 9 FIRST APPEALS, THE FAA PASSED 1 ORDER W/O HEARING OR REPRESENTATION AND ALSO W/O BASIS OR Page 12 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 REASONING, AND ALSO JUSTIFIED NOT GIVING THE APPELLANT A HEARING THE CONDUCT OF THE PIO AND THE FAA OF MPT GOA, REFLECTS CLEAR ILLEGALITY, MALICE AND MALAFIDE INTENT
3. No Receipt of the Representation of the Respondents 3.1. I have NOT BEEN SERVED WITH A copy of the representation, of the respondent, INSPITE OF REQUESTING THE CIC TO SEND THE SAME
4. Action u/s 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 Sought from the CIC and FAA Censures 4.1. In the 1st Appeal, the Appellant had sought Penalty and Administrative action, on the PIO u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 4.2 The Appellant impleads with the CIC, to impose a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-
against the CPIO, u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act and recommend to the Public Authority, to take suitable action against the PIO, under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 or Rule 3(1) of the THE ALL INDIA SERVICES (CONDUCT) RULES, 1968 (or such other service and conduct rules) 4.3 The CIC might note that REFUSAL OF INFORAMTION IS A GROSS VIOLATION OF THE ECHR, ACHR AND SEVERAL OTHER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROTOCOLS (like the ICCPR and ICESCR), AS UNDER:
o Decision in Tarasag a Szabadsag v Hungary, where the European Court of Human Rights held, for the first time, that a refusal of access to information constituted a violation of Article 10 of the ECHR. o The right to information was accepted by the European Committee of Social Rights in Maragopoulous Foundation for Human Rights v Greece, as a necessary condition of the enjoyment of specific social and economic rights ...
6. Incremental Nature 6.1 This representation is, in addition to the 1st Appeal and the 2nd Appeal, submitted to the CIC SUBMITTED TO THE CIC, by the Appellant Page 13 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391
7. Blatant illegal action, negligence, incompetence and malafide intent, of the PIO and the FAA 7.1 The 1st Appeal and the 2nd Appeal, are self explanatory, and so, in this submission, the Appellant will just summarise the blatant illegality and fraud, by the PIO and FAA of MPT Goa. The CIC is requested to impost maximum penalty, u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act and recommend administration action, on the PIO.
8. FRAUDULENT INTENT of the PIO actions and the PIO Reply (IN ADDITION TO THE CONTENTS, OF THE 1ST APPEAL AND THE COMPLAINT) Part 1 - PIO HAS MADE NO REPLY TO RTI APPLICATION NO.3 8.1. THE APPELLANT HAD REMINDED THE CPIO OF MPT GOA THAT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED W.R.T RTI APPLICATION NO.3 (REFER ANNEXURE
2), AND NO RESPNSE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE CPIO 8.1.1. THE CPIO OF MPT GOA HAS A PATTERN OF NEGLIGENCE AND INCOMPETENCE, REPRESENTED AS UNDER:
THE PIO HAS MADE 6 TRANSFER LETTERS WITH THE SAME REF.NO AND THE SAME LANGUAGE (Annexure 1) EACH TRANSFER LETTER IS MADE TO MULTIPLE PIOs, AND THE CPIO HAS NOT STATED WHICH INFORMATION IS TRANSFERRED TO WHICH PIO THE TRANSFER LETTERS REFER TO THE RTI APPLICATION NUMBER - BUT NOT THE REGISTRATION COORDINATES OF THE RTI APPLICATIONS THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE RTI APPLICATION IS STATED AS 23RD MAY 2020 AND NOT AS 23RD SEPTEMBER 2020 THE TRANSFER LETTER DOES NOT STATE IF THE TRANSFER WAS MADE U/S 6(3) OR 5(4) OF THE RTI ACT SHOULD A TRANSFEREE PIO U/S 5(4) OF THE RTI ACT SEND A REPLY TO THE APPELLANT DIRECTLY AS THE APPELLANT RECEIVED MORE THAN 15 REPLIES FROM SEVERAL PIOs AND SOME WITH NO REFERENCE TO ANY RTI APPLICATION 8.1.2. THE CPIO ALSO HAS A RECORD OF WANTON ILLEGALITY AS THE CPIO HAS REJECTED AN RTI APPLICATION ON THE GROUND OF THE APPLICANT NOT PROVING HIS CITIZENSHIP (Annexure 5) THIS WAS DONE BY THE PIO, inspite of the APPELLANT SENDING TO THE CPIO, A MAIL IDENTIFYING THE ILLEGALITY IN THE DEMAND FOR CITIZENSHIP OF THE APPELLANT (Annexure 6) Page 14 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 Part 2 - PIO REPLIES RECEIVED W/O ANY REFERENCE TO ANY RTI APPLICATION 8.2. THE APPELLANT HASS RECEIVED 2 REPLIES FROM 2 PIOs OF MPT GOA, WHICH HAS NO REFERENCE TO ANY RTI APPLICATION OR INFORMATION THEREIN. IN ADDITION, THESE PIO REPLIES HAVE REJECTED THE INFORMATION SOUGHT ON THE GROUND OF CITIZENSHIP AND VOLUMINOUS INFORMATION (Annexure 3) 8.2.1. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE MPT GOA CPIO OR PIO MIGHT CLAIM THAT THE REPLIES IN ANNEXURE 3 RELATED TO RTI APPLICATION NO.3,
- BUT THE CIC IS TO NOTE THAT THE REPLIES IN ANNEXURE WERE ALSO ILLEGALLY REFUSED
10. Public Interest in the information sought 10.1 The information sought, as a matter of paramount public interest, as stated in Para 6.2 to 6.5 of the RTI Application - reproduced below :
THIS COUNTRY'S MARITIME SECURITY AND EFFICIENCY IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ESPECIALLY SINCE MPT GOA IS A LOSS MAKING VENTURE, POST THE BAN OF MINING IN GOA AND BAN ON COAL HANDLING AT MPT GOA. The Minister is on record stating that he wants to shut down MPT Goa ( as losses will keep rising, due to large staff costs, and their geometric costs - in terms of pensions and gratuity etc.) https://indianexpress.com/article/india/foas-mormugao-port-might-shut- down-if-losses-mount-gadkari-5104550/ RELIANCE OF SOUTH BASED STEEL AND POWER PLANTS ON COAL AND ORE IMPORTS FROM MPT AND ITS IMPACT ON POLLUTION IN GOA AND THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE SAME AND THE PAST ACTIONS OF THE NGT AND THE GSPCB, GSCRZ - HAVE PLACED THE ROLE OF MPT IN SERIOUS DOUBT, AND HENCE THE MATTER IS IN PUBLIC INTEREST THE ACTIONS OF MPT ARE QUESTIONABLE AND HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE NGT AS UNDER MPT Goa was granted the Environmental Clearance on 9 th February, 2016, but the actual dredging activities has commenced from 1st January, 2016 in violation of the provisions of the Page 15 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 Environmental (Protection) Act and EIA Notification, 2006 - as also stated in Para 22(b) of the NGT Order dated 2 nd September, 2016 Environmental Clearance has been granted without the mandatory public hearing required for category 'A' projects as per the EIA Notification.
NGT challenge to the thesis of the MOT Goa that it was doing maintenance dredging and not capital dredging (Para 22(a) of the NGT Order dated 2nd September, 2016) NGT Quashed the Order dated 23rd September, 2015, issued by MoEF giving exemption from public consultation to the capital dredging project of MPT Goa (Para 31 of the NGT Order dated 2 nd September, 2016) NGT confirms that the CRZ and EIA study was done on BEHALF OF JSW INFRASTRUCTURE (Para 33 of the NGT Order dated 2 nd September, 2016).
THE MOST DAMNING INDICTMENT OF MPT GOA COMES FROM PARA 48 OF THE NGT ORDER AS UNDER Para 48 of Order - "Distinction has been totally ignored" and for "obvious reasons" the project which is a capital dredging is "construed as a maintenance dredging", which is exempted under Clause-7 of the EIA Notification.
Therefore, we have taken a view that it is not a neglect or omission, BUT MAY BE FOR SOME OTHER REASONS.
...
...
11. REMEDIES SOUGHT FROM THE CIC BY THE APPELLANT 11.1. In addition to the remedies sought in the 1ST AND 2ND APPEAL, the CIC is requested to impose the maximum penalty, on the CPIO u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, on account of the illegal, non-bonafide and malafide action of the PIO AS STATED IN PARA 8.1 TO 8.4 Deemed Rejection u/s 7(2) of the RTI Act on account of Non-Reply by the PIO (Refer Para 8.1., of the Representation) Patterns of Negligence and incompetence of the CPIO (Refer Para 8.1.1 of the Representation) Patterns of Illegality of the CPIO (Refer Para 8.1.2. of the Representation) Page 16 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 Gross Negligence of the PIOs of MPT Goa (Refer Para 8.2 of the Representation) 11.2. Can such NEGLIGENCE AND INCOMPETENCE, be a ground NOT to impose a penalty, as the CPIO IN GOOD FAITH, DOES NOT KNOW THE RTI ACT or HOW TO UNDERSTAND A RTI APPLICATION?
o In this connection, the CIC stated in the case CIC/POSTS/A/2018/102584, Balkrishna Porwal v. PIO, Department of Posts, as under:
o The CPIO cannot plead ignorance of law, which is so candid and specific 11.3. The CIC is requested to recommend disciplinary action, against the CPIO, u/s 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, on account of FRAUDULENT REPLIES AND LIES BY THE PIO, IN PARA 13.1. ABOVE Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Appellant in his written submissions dated 07.11.2021 and 26.02.2021 has adopted a convoluted method to express the facts of the instant case. In fact, the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application also runs around 4 pages. In addition, the Appellant has quoted several orders of the Commission, judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as a reference has also been made to the orders of National Green Tribunal, in order to support his claim for information. The Commission is of the view that as much as the CPIO has a statutory responsibility to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act, the Applicants filing a request under RTI Act should also keep in mind that they should not transgress the letter and spirit of the RTI Act by flooding RTI Applications, which are cumbersome, protracted and circumlocutory in nature. The Commission severely admonishes the Appellant for going beyond the stipulated word limit, which has troubled the Respondent to ascertain what information has been sought and pertains to which Page 17 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 Department. In this regard, the Bench refers to Rule 3 of the RTI Rules, 2012, which says:
3. Application Fee.- 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:
Provided that no application shall be rejected only on the ground that it contains more than five hundred words.
The Commission, therefore, opines that the Appellant instead of seeking information in a reasonable and comprehensible way; has resorted to adopt a tortuous method containing quite a lot of issues/queries in a disorganized/indecipherable manner, resulting in unfathomable hurdles on the part of the Respondent. The Appellant being a responsible citizen who poses to be concerned about the functionality of the Respondent public authority must impliedly know his limitations while filing an RTI query before any Respondent public authority. The Commission strictly cautions him that in future, he shall holistically adhere to the relevant provisions of the RTI Rules, 2012 while filing any RTI Application before any public authority.
Further, the Commission finds it pivotal to aver at this juncture, that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application and the Second Appeal followed by his lengthy written submissions and annexures alongwith it has time and again avowed that the information sought is not just in public interest but in national interest (without substantiating/justifying the same). It is pertinent to state herein that the Appellant's contention is rather preposterous because mere statements such as 'involving larger public interest' and 'national interest' do not suffice and the onus to prove the same lies with the Appellant. In fact, the Appellant in the beginning of his written submissions has vociferously argued that no information has been Page 18 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 provided to him. However, he admits that the Respondent has provided some information without mentioning to which RTI Application that reply specifically pertains to. Same is in the case during the proceedings of the hearing; he began stating that no information has been provided to him but later on mellowed down his aggressive oral arguments and admitted that partial information has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, it is proven that the Appellant has chosen to aver statements, which are frivolous and beyond the sphere of truth. Such behavior of the Appellant is not just infuriating and the same has caused criminal wastage of Commission's as well as Respondent public authority's time that too at the cost of the public exchequer. The Commission needs to think twice regarding the intent of the Appellant as to whether he genuinely wants information from the Respondent or intends to harass the Respondent public authority. The Appellant in the present RTI Application has categorically relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of B.S. Mathur v. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court vide W.P.(C) 295 and 608 of 2011, wherein he has referred that the Hon'ble Court has held that "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer...". The Commission without denying the said fact draws the Appellant's attention that majority of the queries sought in the present RTI Application are in the nature of seeking PIO's confirmation regarding certain aspects such as dates pertaining to commencing and concluding of certain constructions at Naval/Coast Guard berths, names of the vendors who were awarded contracts for the aforesaid construction, date of execution of the lease agreement etc. from the Respondent. The Commission points out that though it is not mandatory to provide reasons for seeking information under the RTI Act, but the same does not mean that an applicant can seek all/any information under the Page 19 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 sky. The Commission will not be incorrect in saying that the Appellant has relatively misinterpreted the term "information". It has been clearly defined at Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as under:
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 view of the above, it is clearly evident that the information which is available in record or accessible by a public authority can only be provided under the RTI Act. In the instant case, the Appellant has not only sought clarifications from the Respondent, instead, he has argued that photography is allowed under the RTI Act under Section 2(j)(iv) of the RTI Act. It is pertinent to state herein that Section 2(j)(iv) of the RTI Act reads as under:
2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -
(j)"right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to -
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
It seems the Appellant has yet again misinterpreted Section 2(j)(iv) of the RTI Act. In his defense, he has relied upon a coordinate Bench's decision vide File No. CIC/AD/A/09/00125 in the matter of Mr. Sidharth Mishra v/s. BSNL, Cuttack, wherein the Commission in its decision dated 23.02.2009 had categorically allowed the Appellant therein to use camera to take photos of the relevant documents. Moreover, the Commission cannot overlook the aspect that the Page 20 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 adjudication is done on case-to-case basis as well as in accordance with the facts and circumstance of the concerned case. However, in the instant case, the Respondent public authority conducts its operations in multifarious aspects that directly impact the economy of the nation, to an extent. Hence, considering the importance of the services rendered by them to the country as well as considering the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application, photography of the averred documents/records/information cannot be allowed by this Bench because the question of photography arises only if the condition of the document/record is in a dilapidated state and cannot be photocopied anymore by repeated handling. Nevertheless, the Respondent public authority vide their reply dated 12.09.2018 and 19.09.2018 had requested the Appellant to inspect the records, which means that they were ready and willing to show the relevant records/documents to the Appellant. Moreover, the Appellant has not only availed the opportunity of inspection till date but has made contradictory statements such as 'no information has been provided' and 'partial information has been provided', which brings to a conclusion that he is no more in need of information, instead, he particularly wants to harass the Respondent public authority for the reasons best known to him. This erratic attempt of the Appellant is severely criticized and admonished by the Commission. Moreover, the Appellant in a cyclostyled manner has framed the queries of the instant RTI Application, wherein he has specifically asked the PIO to 'CONFIRM' the commencing and concluding date of certain constructions, 'CONFIRM' whether the Respondent has a copy of the NGT's Order pronounced on 02.09.2016 concerning to the dredging and other expansions of MPT etc., which is beyond the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Page 21 of 34CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 In this regard, the Commission finds it RELEVANT and JUST to rely upon the following judgments:
a. The fact that the onus to establish mala fide or unreasonable conduct of the CPIO is on the Appellant/Complainant is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on 01.06.2012) held as under:
"61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger will for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute.Page 22 of 34
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 It is important to mention herein that the Appellant in the instant Second Appeal has prayed as under:
Penalty on the PIO (under Section 19(8)(c), of the RTI Act, 2005); Dismissal of the PIO on account of illegal, deliberate, malafide and baseless rejection of RTI Applications (and violation of CCS Rules, as stated in Para 2.4.2);
Administrative action and/strictures, against the PIO (under Section 20(2), of the RTI Act, 2005);
Recommendation to the GOI - Ministry of Shipping for administrative action and/strictures, against the PIO Impose Maximum Penalty, on the PIO under Section 20(1), of the RTI Act,2005: Direct the Respondent to refund the Application fee paid by Complainant while submitting RTI Application, as per section (7)(6) of the RTI Act; Provide the information free of cost, as per section (7)(6) of the RTI Act; Invoke its powers under the RTI Act to issue any other direction or recommendation as it may deem appropriate;
Direct the public authority to make entry in Service Book/Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the Respondent for defying the provisions of the Act Compensation for the Appellant for pecuniary and other loss [Reproduced verbatim] It is evident from the above that the Appellant in the instant Second Appeal as well as in the written submission has alleged the CPIO and ridiculed the Respondent public authority in such a way, the Commission is left with no other alternative to infer that the Appellant is not seeking the information from the Respondent in public/national interest; instead, it appears that he is on a mission to seek vengeance or has some personal vendetta against the Respondent public authority.
b. Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors., W.P.(C) 3114/2007, is also pertinent, wherein the Hon'ble Court stated as under:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application Page 23 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Further, the Commission is baffled to note that the Appellant has made such unscrupulous remarks on the Respondent public authority; despite they have provided an opportunity to inspect the records. In fact, it appears that the Appellant has understood that the provisions of the RTI Act can be twisted according to his whims and fancies as well as to his requirements. If that is the case, the Commission is not an authority to educate an already educated individual. The Commission also notes that even during the hearing, the Appellant rather makes an attempt to mystify both the Commission as well as the Respondent by taking refuge on unconnected events or mentioning certain things without any proof. The Commission is self-assured that the Appellant during the hearing is always beating around the bush instead of specifying as to what information he has sought or what information he wishes to seek. The modus operandi adopted by the Appellant is nothing but a classic example of systematic persecution as well as wasting precious time of the public authority as well as the Commission at the cost of the public exchequer.
c. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr., W.P.(C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009, stated as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.Page 24 of 34
CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 ...
The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
Upon going through the replies dated 12.09.2018 and 19.09.2018, the Commission finds that the Respondent has provided an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect the relevant records, which the Appellant is contesting till date, which is rather bizarre to note.
d. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries, [AIR 1980 SC 1946] has stated as under:
"... filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings..."
Subsequently, the Commission is rather perplexed to note that the Appellant, who researches comprehensively, has relatively not appreciated the fact that a PIO/CPIO is not supposed to provide clarification, not supposed to answers to questions/queries etc. In the instant case, the Appellant has referred to a decision of the National Green Tribunal, which had questioned the actions of the Respondent regarding granting Environmental Clearance. The Appellant has not apprised the Commission regarding how the said reliance of the National Green Tribunal's decision/order causes an impact in deciding the instant matter. In addition, the Appellant has placed reliance on European Convention of Human Rights, American Convention of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Page 25 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 Political Rights, International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, without even ascertaining the fact as to whether India has ratified them or not. It seems that the Appellant has failed to comprehend the fact that whenever there is a conflict between two statutes, the lex loci is the shorthand version of the choice of law rules that determine the lex causae. Even so, he has not even substantiated as to how the Articles of the aforesaid instruments/multi-national treaty is applicable in the instant case.
e. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the issue in great detail in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal [AIR 2003 SC 280, para 11], wherein J.Pasayat has held as under:
"... 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 oppresses 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 Page 26 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 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] In the instant case, the Appellant is not just pressurizing the Respondent public authority by seeking clarification/confirmation, but also harassing them by filing multiple queries followed by reminders, e-mail communications etc. Not to forget to mention the fact that the Respondent has even relied upon several orders of this Commission. The Commission unavoidably has to mention the fact that the Appellant is in a habit of filing RTI Applications in a numbered manner i.e., 'RTI Application No. 1, ... No. 2, ... No. 3 and No. 4'. Further, the Appellant has a set pattern of enclosing all or more than one RTI Application, which is not just confusing but irksome as well. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Appellant has repeatedly cited that he has not been provided a fair hearing by the First Appellate Authority, which is absurd because the Appellant even in the First Appeal has clubbed the grounds of all the 4 RTI Applications, which is in actuality, a bewildering document and yet, the First Appellate Authority, in the same way, has clubbed all his First Appeals and reminders and provided a detailed order. In this regard, the Commission counsels the Appellant that Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, defines as under:
6.(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to-
...
...
[Emphasis supplied] A plain reading of the aforesaid Section makes it amply clear that the Parliament of India, while enacting the Act has categorically provided a right to an Indian citizen Page 27 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 that he/she shall make a request and not requests. Adding on to it, the Appellant has made it a practice that he sends e-mail reminders with subject-line "Awaiting FAA Hearing Notice - w.r.t 8 (Eight) 1st Appeals" ; "Awaiting FAA Hearing Notice - w.r.t 9 (Nine) 1st Appeals.
f. It is further pertinent to mention herein that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the matter of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) vs. B. Bharathi., W.P. No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014 has also given its opinion about such vexatious litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"... The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest..." [Emphasis supplied] g. It is furthermore pertinent to mention herein that the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Shail Sahni v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors., W.P.(C) 845/2014 has stated as under:
"... Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. 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 beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law..." [Emphasis supplied] h. In the matter of Rajni Mendiratta v. Dte. of Education (North West-B]., W.P.(C) no. 7911/2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.10.2015 stated as under:
"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 Page 28 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 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 Commission considers that the Appellant's move to seek voluminous information followed by his counter to every reply/letter of the Respondent does not make him a citizen who fights for exposing corruption/arbitrariness and to improve/correct the governance. Instead, it proves that the Appellant wants to correct a wrong that has been perceivably done and the only intention is to get justice for himself. The Appellant rather appears to have converted the provisions of the RTI Act as a tool of oppression/intimidation, which the Commission discourages outrightly.
i. In the matter of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors., AIR 2011 SC 3336, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"... The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and
(j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act.
But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well-informed democracy is transparency. However it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent Page 29 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 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 government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use..."
j. In the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"33. ... The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interests...
...
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... ... 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 prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties..." [Emphasis supplied] Page 30 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 k. In the matter of Mr. Amit Pande vs. CPIO & General Manager (Legal), Small Industries Development Bank of India, Lucknow vide File No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001398/SG, a coordinate Bench of this Commission vide order dated 07.09.2011 has held as under:
It is relevant to mention that the Supreme Court of Indian in Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appeal (Civil) No. 2298/2001 (judgment dated 22/03/2001) has clarified as follows:
"... it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of stature that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statue are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. The Courts have adhered to the principle that efforts should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature and it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surpluses, if they can have a proper application in circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of the statute."
The principle laid down above has been reiterated time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The golden rule of statutory interpretation, as laid down by the Supreme Court of India, has the force of law. If the said rule is to be applied, then the term 'a request' must be given its natural and ordinary meaning, which certainly does not appear to mean 'one category of information'. If at all a meaning is ascribed to the term ' a request', it would mean 'an application' seeking information under the RTI Act. Even from a plain reading of Section 6(1) and 7(1) of the RTI Act, there does not appear to be any embargo on the scope of such request or application. In other words, this Bench rules that there is no legal requirement on an applicant's part to restrict the scope of her RTI application only one subject matter.
...
Page 31 of 34CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 At this juncture, it would be pertinent to mention that what constitutes a 'single subject matter' has neither been defined in the RTI Act, the rules and regulations framed thereunder and not even by the then Chief/Information Commissioners in the said decisions. No parameters have been laid down by the then Chief/Information Commissioner by which an applicant and the PIO can determine whether the information sought pertains to one-subject matter. In the absence of any means to determine what tantamount to 'one subject matter', the PIO can, at his discretion, furnish part information claiming that the remaining information sought in the RTI application pertains to a different subject matter for which a separate RTI application is required to be filed. The exercise of such discretion by the PIO is likely to be subjective resulting in arbitrary curtailment of the fundamental right to information of citizens and unnecessary expenditure of money. In the absence of any clear definition of what 'one category of request' means it would only lead to arbitrary refusals of information under the RTI Act, leading to clogging of the appellate mechanisms. However, rules framed by the competent authority could put some reasonable restrictions on the length of the RTI application."
In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the Respondent has provided enough opportunity to inspect the relevant records, which the Appellant has not availed till date. Further, the Commission finds no illegality on the part of the Respondent for seeking proof of citizenship because considering the importance and sensitivity of the information sought in the instant RTI Application as well as the alleged antecedents of the Appellant, the Respondent public authority has on a selective basis and as a matter of abundant caution sought proof of citizenship from the Appellant.
l. In the matter of Fruit & Merchant Union vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others vide C.W.P. No. 4787 of 2011, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh Bench vide judgment dated 02.11.2012 has held as under:
"23. Further, in all complaints before the Public Information Officer, the appeal before the first appellate authority or any proceedings before the Page 32 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 Commission, it should be ensured that the applicant files his proof of identity along with the application. It is for the reason that in some cases, it has come to the notice of this court that the applicants were not identifiable. It would ensure that only the genuine persons file applications."
The Commission after going through the letters/replies sent by the Respondent to the Appellant; does not find any mala fide on the Respondent's part in seeking the proof of citizenship. There is absolutely no doubt that information under Section 3 of the RTI Act can be sought only by an Indian citizen. However, it is to be noted that the public authority has the liberty to seek proof of citizenship from an applicant, when he/she is seeking information, which is not just barred/exempted from disclosure, because the said information, at times may be sensitive from security perspective and this concern can never be disregarded. The Commission is sentient that under the provisions of the RTI Act, disclosure of information is a rule and non-disclosure is an exception. Hence, the Commission is of a considered opinion that the proof of citizenship is not required from an information seeker as a matter of principle but there are certain exceptional circumstances, as in the case of the Appellant, in which the PIO/CPIO is at liberty to seek proof of citizenship. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances discussed above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the information provided by the Respondent. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is dismissed with no relief. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands dismissed.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 10.05.2021 Page 33 of 34 CIC/MPOTR/A/2018/637391 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Mormugao Port Trust, Administrative Office, Headland, Sada, Goa - 403804
2. The Central Public Information Officer, Mormugao Port Trust, Administrative Office, Headland, Sada Goa - 403804
3. Shri Samir Sardana Page 34 of 34