Central Information Commission
Sanjay Bhaty vs Ministry Of Shipping on 4 May, 2020
Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
Sanjay Bhaty ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Kandla Port Trust,
AO Building
Gandhidham (Kutch)
Gujarat: 370201
2. CPIO,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, G.P.O Complex,
Block A, INA,
New Delhi-110023
3. CPIO,
Ministry of Shipping,
Transport Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Decision 01/05/2020
S No. Second Appeal Date of RTI CPIO Reply First Appeal FAA Order Second
/Complaint Appeal/Com
Diary No. plaint
(Corresponding
to last digits of
File No.)
Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham (Kutch), Gujarat (Respondent No.1)
1. 100027 11/05/2018 05/07/2018 24/06/2018 17/10/2018 26/12/2018
1
Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
2. 100028 19/05/2018 07/07/2018 30/06/2018 17/07/2018 28/12/2018
3. 100030 02/05/2017 08/06/2017; 10/01/2018 20/06/2018 27/12/2018
15/07/2017
&19/07/201
8
4. 100031 17/05/2017 19/07/2018 13/11/2017 20/06/2018 26/12/2018
5. 100050 05/04/2018 10/08/2018 06/05/2018 20/06/2018 21/12/2018
6. 100051 18/04/2018 01/08/2018 08/07/2018 20/10/2018 23/12/2018
7. 100052 (Appeal) 15/05/2018 30/06/2018 30/06/2018 20/10/2018 21/12/2018
+ &
100680 22/12/2018
(Complaint)
8. 100053 02/06/2018 13/07/2018 10/07/2018 20/10/2018 24/12/2018
9. 100054 03/06/2018 29/06/2018 07/07/2018 18/10/2018 24/12/2018
10. 101192 18/05/2017 26/07/2018 10/07/2018 Not on 29/12/2018
record
11. 104857 13/05/2018 29/05/2018 19/12/2018 15/01/2019 18/01/2019
12. 107440 18/04/2018 26/09/2018 19/12/2018 Not on 08/01/2019
Record
13. 107441 07/10/2018 17/11/2018 19/12/2018 Not on 08/01/2019
Record
14. 619422 16/10/2017 12/01/2018 10/01/2018 27/02/2018 09/05/2018
15. 621799 10/09/2017 18/10/2017 29/10/2017 11/04/2018 27/05/2018
16. 121979 Not Not Not Not 26/09/2017
specified specified specified specified
17. 132118 23/10/2017 Not on 10/01/2018 08/05/2018 11/05/2018
record
18. 132119 04/04/2017 Not on 04/08/2017 Not on 05/04/2018
record record
19. 173853 13/05/2018 Not on 30/06/2018 18/10/2018 19/12/2018
record
20. 173854 18/04/2018 Not on 24/05/2018 Not on 18/12/2018
record record
21. 173855 12/05/2018 Not on 30/06/2018 20/10/2018 17/12/2018
record
22. 619506 17/02/2018 Not on 25/03/2018 Not on 03/05/2018
record record
Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi (Respondent No. 2 )
23. 105348 14/12/2016 20/01/2017 13/02/2017 17/03/2017 02/01/2019
2
Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
24. 100029 30/08/2018 08/10/2018 27/10/2018 08/11/2018 26/12/2018
25. 101189 05/05/2018 13/07/2018 30/06/2018 24/07/2018 02/01/2019
Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi (Respondent No.3)
26. 100032 25/05/2018 22/06/2018 07/07/2018 25/07/2018 25/12/2018
27. 121978 02/11/2017 17/11/2017 10/01/2018 01/02/2018 02/04/2018
28. 144603 18/04/2018 31/05/2018 03/06/2018 27/06/2018 10/07/2018
29. 620787 24/08/2017 Not on 13/11/2017 Not on 16/05/2018
record record
lwpukvk;qDr : fnO; izdk"kflUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
File No.: CIC/DSHIP/A/2019/100027 The Appellant sought complete file noting/correspondence of file no. FA/F- 48/4000 from which note no. FA/F-48/4000/497 dated 26/02/2018 was issued etc. File No.: CIC/DSHIP/A/2019/100028 The Appellant sought information through 29 points pertaining to payments made to contractual employees at Kandla Port Trust from 2014 till 2018.
File No.: CIC/DSHIP/A/2019/100030 The Appellant sought information through 7 points pertaining to the copies of all the communication received by the Vigilance Department based on which investigation was carried out against him.
File No.: CIC/DSHIP/A/2019/100031 The Appellant sought details along with copies of investigations conducted by Kandla Port Trust from year 1982 till 2017.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100050 The Appellant sought copies of Logbooks maintained by the Kandla Signal Station of Kandla port Trust from the year 2006 till 2018, including inter alia, copies of Marine Bills/Shipping Bills/ Billing Reports for marine related services raised by Harbour Master Division/Marine Department to the Ships/Vessels from the year 2010 etc. 3 Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/107441 The Appellant sought copy of 35 files including both noting and correspondence side.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/107440 + CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100051+ CIC/MPTRS/A/2018/144603 The Appellant sought information through 20 points pertaining to constitution of a Review committee, if any, in KPT in order to review suspensions of officers as per Government Directives.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100053 The Appellant sought details of payments made to the advocates during the period from 2009 till 2017, including inter alia, details of payments made to Shri S.P.M Tripathi during the period from 2015 till 2018 etc. File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100054 The Appellant sought information through 9 points pertaining to the penalty imposed on him by Chairman, Kandla Port Trust vide order No.: KPV/01-A/04- 15/477 dated 06.07.2017.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/C/2019/100680 + CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100052 The Complainant/Appellant sought copies of inward and outward registers maintained by the office of the Chairman from the year 2008 to 2018.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/101192 The Appellant sought information through 4 points pertaining to details of procedures adopted by the Kandla Port Trust for empanelment of Advocates/Solicitors for their cases in CAT, High Courts, and Supreme Courts.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/104857 The Appellant sought copies of Inward Registers, Outward Registers and Dredging Reports available with the Vigilance Department from the year 2012 till 2018.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/C/2018/121979 The Complainant sought information through 16 points pertaining to appointment of P B Jadeja, Vigilance Inspector at KDLB.4
Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/132118 The Appellant sought copies of Agenda items placed before the Board of Port of Kandla regarding laying, strengthening, paving main roads and internal roads at the cargo jetty area alongwith all its Annexures and copies of board resolutions passed thereafter in respect of the said agenda during the years 2010 to 2017 File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/132119 The Appellant sought information pertaining to details of Pre & Post Dredging Surveys carried out by the Kandla Port Trust for each dredging contracts.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/173853 The Appellant sought information through 18 points pertaining to eligibility and entitlement of Mr. Ravi Parmar, former Chairman, Kandla Port Trust in regards of his Official accommodation and details of the provisions of CPWD Manual or as per the Government norms as per which the aforementioned accommodation was provided to him etc. File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/173854 The Appellant sought complete file noting/correspondence under which letter No. KPV/1-A/04-15/Part-II/683 dated 04.10.2017 was issued to the National Commission for Scheduled Caste, New Delhi by the Personnel Officer, Deendayal Port Trust.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/173855 The Appellant through 28 points sought copies and details of T.A Bills/T.A Claims preferred by Ravi. M. Parmar during his tenure at Kandla Port Trust from January 2014 to 2018 including for foreign tours made by him.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/619422 The Appellant sought copies of the complete files, Part Files, etc., both noting and correspondence, under which letter Nos.KPC/04-A/01-15/513 dated 03.07.2015; KPC/4017-VIG/514 dated 03.07.2015; KPC/04-A/01-15/507 dated 29.06.2015; KPC/4029-Vig/555 dated 14/07/2015 etc. Were issued by the Vigilance Department of Kandla Port Trust.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/619506 The Appellant sought information through 6 points pertaining to promotion of Mr.Omprakash Dadlani, PRA, to the post of TP&PRO, KPT, in the month of January 2018.
5Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/621799 The Appellant sought copies of all the files, part files bearing Nos.: KPV/01- A/04-15 and KPV/03-A/03-15, both noting and correspondences under which order Nos.: KPV/01-A/04-15/477 dated 06.07.2017 and KPV/03-A/03-15/128 dated 14.02.2017 were issued etc. File No.: CIC/CVCOM/A/2019/105348 The Appellant sought information through 11 points regarding Charge Sheets issued by the Kandla Port Trust(KPT) or by Ministry of Shipping to various officials related to dredging activities at Kandla Port.
File No.: CIC/CVCOM/A/2019/100029 The Appellant sought specification as to whether CVC, New Delhi was consulted by the Kandla Port Trust prior to initiation of 9 Departmental Proceedings against him, including inter alia, copies of complaints received against him by the CVC, New Delhi during 2015-16.
File No.: CIC/CVCOM/A/2019/101189 The Appellant through 7 points sought copy of the Reports prepared and submitted to the Hon'ble CVC during the year 2013 to 2016 by the then CVO, Kandla Port Trust (Mr. P.Ramjee, IPS), including inter alia, copies of Dak inward and outward registers maintained by the CVC, New Delhi for the year 2012 till 2016 etc. File No.: CIC/DSHIP/A/2019/100032 The Appellant sought complete copies of files under which representation of H. S Banerjee, Manager, Kolkata Port Trust was dealt by the Ministry of Shipping, including inter alia, copies of letter nos. F.PR12012/3/2009-PE. I dated 27.10.2010 and 22.04.2014 etc. File No.: CIC/DSHIP/A/2018/121978 The Appellant sought information through 3 points pertaining to debarment/ blacklisting of M/s Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. in the Major Ports of India during the period from 2005 to 2015 highlighting the debarment period in each case alongwith the related orders and copies of files on which the discussion was taken in this regard.
6Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
File No.: CIC/DSHIP/A/2018/620787 The Appellant sought specification regarding number of relaxation which can be provided to an individual officer as per the letter No.: F.PR-12012/3/2009- PE.I dated 27th October, 2010 and 22nd April, 2013, of Ministry of Shipping relaxing the eligibility criteria of the notified Recruitment Rules.
Grounds for the Second Appeal/Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Observations The instant cases have been clubbed for decision to avoid multiplicity of proceedings based on a deduction of the Commission while adjudicating on earlier Appeals filed by the Appellant against Kandla Port Trust. The averred deduction has been recorded in the orders dated 01.07.2019 in the following words:
"Commission remarked at the outset based on the number of Appeals of the Appellant heard previously by this bench as well as four other Appeals being heard simultaneously with the instant case that the Appellant is clearly misusing the channel of RTI Act. It was observed that the Appellant appears to be harnessing various grudges against Kandla Port Trust on account of his service related matters and in the process is harassing the public authorities by filing mostly cumbersome and repetitive RTI Applications."
"....As regards the misuse of RTI Act observed by the Commission during hearing, it appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality. However, adverting to cases such as this where the intention of the RTI Applicant is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that it is to only pester the public authorities; the notion of misuse of RTI Act well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments is relevant such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:7
Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
'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 8 Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' The aforesaid dicta essentially proves that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized bane and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not after all absolute. Keeping this in view, Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future."
Now, having perused the instant 30 Second Appeals, this bench is of the considered opinion that these cases are merely a protraction of the earlier cases premised on the subject of his suspension, or about bills and claims submitted by certain third parties whom he believes have caused alleged misappropriation of public money or outright sundry information spanning across several years. It has also been noted that Appellant is in a habit of repeating queries by merely adding them to new queries raised in succeeding RTI Applications and most of these RTI Applications are worded in a cumbersome manner and do not even conform to the 500word limit prescribed under Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012.
Commission has noted that although most of Appellant's cases are against Kandla Port Trust, from where he was dismissed from service (as per the submission of the CPIO, Ministry of Shipping in one of the earlier cases decided on 24.04.2019 vide File No.CIC/DSHIP/A/2017/178685/A), however other public authorities such as Central Vigilance Commission, Central Bureau of Investigation, Ministry of Shipping & Transport have also been roped in by the Appellant for furtherance of his grievances. A close scrutiny of the nature of information sought by the Appellant till date from these public authorities suggest an aimless exercise on his part in asserting his right to information. It will also not be out of place to point out that some of these RTI Applications are extremely frivolous and seemingly vindictive. To put the foregoing 9 Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
observations into perspective, we may highlight certain facts from the instant cases hereunder:
I. The following is a verbatim extract of some of the information sought by the Appellant in File Nos.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/107440 + CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100051+ CIC/MPTRS/A/2018/144603:
1. Please provide me with copies of office order and file notings in which the hiring of vehicles during outstation Tours of G. Suresh, Dy. CVO, KPT, were approved during the period from 2012 to 2015.
2. Please provide me with copies of office order and file notings in which the hiring of vehicles during outstation Tours of P.Ramjee, CVO, KPT, were approved during the period from January,2012 to 31 July, 2015.
3. Please provide me copy of paid vouchers of T.A.Bills /Air Travelling Bills/ T.A.claims of to & fro was paid in respect of Mr. P. Shankar, Ex.CVC for his journey from Chennai to Gandhidham/Bhuj during first week of August 2013.
4. Please provide me with copies of bills pertaining to procurement of gadgets, machineries, equipments, laptops, computers and printers both in office and at residence, cameras, video cameras and other automations for Mr.P.Ramji, during his tenure as KPT Chief Vigilance Officer during the period from 14th January,2012 to 31July, 2015.
5. Please provide me with list of gadgets, machineries, equipments, laptops, computers and printers both in office and at residence, camaras, video camaras and other automations received back from Mr.P.Ramjee, at the time of his relinquishing the charge of office of the Chief Vigilance Officer, Kandla Port Trust.
6. Please provide me with list of gadgets, machineries, equipments, laptops, computers and printers both in office and at residence, camaras, video camaras and other automations yet to be returned by Mr.P.Ramjee, Ex.
CVO, KPT.
7. Please provide me with list of gadgets, machineries, equipments, laptops, computers and printers, camaras, video camaras and other automations 10 Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
purchased, repurchased and replaced during the period from 14-01-2012 to 31-07-2015 in respect of P.Ramjee, CVO, KPT.
8. Please provide me with evidence and in detail as to how much money was incurred month-wise by KPT towards hiring of vehicles for P Ramjee, CVO, KPT from 14-01-2012to31-07-2015.
9. Please provide me with month-wise leave records viz. casual Leave, Earned Leave, HA.PL, Medical Leave, Substitute Offs, etc. of P.Ramjee, CVO, KPT from 14-01-2012 to 31-07-2015.
10.Please provide me with details as to how much amount was paid to P.Ramjee, CVO, KPT from 14-01-2012 to 31-07-2015 towards Leave Encashment and for how many days.
11.Please provide me with details as to the quantum of Productivity linked - Bonus paid to P.Ramjee, CVO, KPT from 14-01-2012 to 3107-2015.
12.Please provide me with list and details of Seminars/Symposiums/training programmes attended by P.Ramjee, CVO, KPT as a delegate of Kandla Port Trust, on government money, during the period from 14-01-2012 to 31-07-2015 duly nominated by G.A.Department and by Vigilance Department separately.
13.Please provide me with details of government money paid to P.Ramjee, CVO, KPT during the period from 14-01-2012 to 31-072015 towards his TA and DA, tour-wise.
14.Please provide me with details of government money paid to P.Ramjee, CVO, MbPT towards his TA/DA and fringe benefits Please provide me with details of government money paid towards hiring of vehicles date- wise for P Ramjee, CVO(l/c), MbpT.
15.Please provide me with details of guest house accommodation provided to P.Ramjee, CVO, MbPT during his tenure with MbpT.
16.Please provide me with details as to where the Heads of Departments of other Major Ports are provided guest house accommodation by MbPT.
11Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
17.Please provide me with details as to when the KPT residential accommodation (Bungalow No.A/4, Gopalpuri) was finally vacated by P.Ramjee, Ex.CVO, KPT.
18.Please provide me with details and copies of the files both noting and correspondence on which the matter relating to Dredging work awarded to Ms. Jaisu Shipping Pvt. Ltd. during the period 2010-2014, which was investigated by the Vigilance and ended in realizing Rs.101 . . . .crores as hoisted in the website of KPT."
The aforesaid queries have been repeated in another RTI Application bearing 28 queries seeking the same information with respect to another employee named Ravi M Parmar referred in File No.CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/173855.
II. Similarly, in File No.: CIC/DSHIP/A/2019/100028, Appellant has raised 29 queries seeking details of all contractual staff employed by Kandla Port Trust and details of work executed by them over these years with details of paid vouchers to them; copies of work order and details of advance payment, progress and status of 9 different projects; and the time period for these range between 2009-2018; while the remaining 17 odd queries seek copies of more than a dozen letters for the period between 2012-2017 pertaining to a third party and copy of dak registers of about 4 years.
III. Further, vide File Nos. CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/104857 and CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100052, Appellant has sought for copies of inward outward dak registers for the period between 2008-2018 while in File No. CIC/DSHIP/A/2019/100031, Appellant has sought copies of various investigations, their reports, communications made with Ministry of Shipping by Kandla Port Trust and details of Engineer-in-Charge during the execution of dredging contracts as well as details of each of these contracts for the period starting from 1982 till 2017.
The foregoing instances are indicative of the sheer volume of information sought by the Appellant and the fact that these RTI Applications are filed in quick succession suffice an illustration for the observation of the Apex Court in Aditya Bandhopadhyay's case (supra) that -"...The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time 12 Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties...."
Appellant shall also note that in his spree of filing RTI Applications and corresponding First & Second Appeals, he has also caused immense confusion by either submitting the same Appeals multiple times, like in the case of File No.: CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/107440 + CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100051+ CIC/MPTRS/A/2018/144603, wherein the same RTI Application filed with Ministry of Shipping has been referred but somehow the registration number and date of the RTI Application is different in File No. CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100051. Even further, Commission is baffled with the fact that firstly the grounds of Appeal mentioned in File No. CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/107441 do not correspond to the RTI Application referred therein, moreover, the same grounds of Appeal has been repeated in File No.CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/101192 in a cyclostyled manner, again without bearing any relevance with the RTI Application referred therein.
While in all the instant cases, Appellant has asserted that he is fighting against misuse of public money and urges that he is at the receiving end for calling out financial improprieties in the administration of Kandla Port Trust, fact remains that the manner in which he has sought to channelize his crusade against alleged corruption through RTI Act renders his efforts redundant. Thus, even if Commission were to sparingly acknowledge that this is an attempt on the Appellant's part to fight corruption, the means adopted by him stifles and negates the very purpose of RTI Act. In other words, however noble the end of this vociferous attempt of bringing about probity in the functioning of Kandla Port Trust would have been, fact remains that the means adopted by the Appellant regrettably speaks volumes of his ignorance of the spirit of the RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI Applicants to not transgress the spirit of RTI Act by clogging the functioning of public authorities with such repetitive, cumbersome and implausible RTI Applications merely claiming that it is intrinsic to fighting corruption.
Here, Commission deems it fit to highlight the fact that although RTI Act does not expressly provide for imposing costs on a frivolous RTI Applicant or barring such applicants from mounting pressure on the public authorities under the guise of exercising right to information, but where the process of Court is being abused, as held in Rajni Maindiratta's case (supra) - 'Neither the authorities 13 Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
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.'In this context, the concept of inherent powers vested in the superior courts to prevent the abuse of the process of Court can be relied upon by the Commission to derive an analogous power to prevent the misuse of RTI Act, as the Preamble of the Act clearly postulates that it is necessary to harmonise the revelation of information in actual practice with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and another v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd[(1990) 4 SCC 453]held that the legislature has intended and has conceded certain powers to the tribunals in their assigned field of jurisdiction for the efficacious and meaningful exercise of their power. Such powers are implied in every tribunal unless expressly barred. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under:
"8. There is no doubt that the Tribunal functions as a court within the limits of its jurisdiction. It has all the powers conferred expressly by the statute. Furthermore, being a judicial body, it has all those incidental and ancillary powers which are necessary to make fully effective the express grant of statutory powers. Certain powers are recognised as incidental and ancillary, not because they are inherent in the Tribunal, nor because its jurisdiction is plenary, but because it is the legislative intent that the power which is expressly granted in the assigned field of jurisdiction is efficaciously and meaningfully exercised. The powers of the Tribunal are no doubt limited. Its area of jurisdiction is clearly defined, but within the bounds of its jurisdiction, it has all the powers expressly and impliedly granted. The implied grant is, of course, limited by the express grant and, therefore, it can only be such powers as are truly incidental and ancillary for doing all such acts or employing all such means as are reasonably necessary to make the grant effective. As stated in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (11th edn.) "where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution".
(Emphasis Supplied) The vulnerability of this benevolent statute to such misuse cannot be allowed to perpetuate once Commission has taken cognizance of the intent of the RTI Applicant. It would not be out of place to deem the Appellant as a vexatious/frivolous litigant who has been afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing and any further opportunity of being heard on the same grievances is 14 Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
not going to alter or improve the merits of these cases, rather it would seem as an empty formality. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Keshav Mills Co Ltd. v. Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC 380 on the violability of the rules of natural justice held as under:
"We do not think it either feasible or even desirable to lay down any fixed or rigorous yard-stick in this manner. The concept of natural justice cannot be put into a straight-jacket. It is futile, therefore, to look for definitions or standards of natural justice from various decisions and then try to apply them to the facts of any given case. The only essential point that has to be kept in mind in all cases is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and that the administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably..... See, for instance, the observations of Lord Parker in re H.K. (an infant), (1967) 2 QB 617. It only means that such measure of natural justice should be applied as was described by Lord Reid in Ridge v. Baldwin case (supra) as 'insusceptible of exact definition but what a reasonable man would regard as a fair procedure in particular circumstances'. However, even the application of the concept of fair- play requires real flexibility. Everything will depend on the actual facts and circumstances of a case. As Tucker, L.J., observed in Russell v. Duke of Norfolk, [1949] 1 All ER 109:
'The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject- matter that is being dealt with and so forth.' The concept of vexatious litigation has gained ground over the years through various judgments of the superior courts imposing exemplary costs on such litigants. Moreover, the 192nd report of the Law Commission placed on record a Draft Bill, namely, the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Bill, 2005to 'prevent the institution or continuance of vexatious proceedings, civil and criminal, in the High Courts and Courts subordinate thereto.'; while several states like Maharashtra, Kerala, Goa etc. have already enacted Vexatious Litigation Acts. Thus, the menace caused by vexatious/frivolous litigants is well recognized and if similar obstruction is faced by quasi-judicial bodies particularly with respect to statutes like the RTI Act, which is premised on bringing transparency and accountability in government functioning for the larger good of the public, it is only axiomatic that such misuse ought to be curbed. When we speak of the enormity of public interest entailed in the enactment of RTI Act, it is prudent to hold that in disposing of the multitude of perceived grievances based RTI Applications/First Appeals/Second Appeals filed by the Appellant, the public 15 Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
authorities and the Commission will invariably delay action on the RTI Applications and Appeals filed by other citizens and when we juxtapose the interest of these two categories of citizens exercising their right to information, the interest of the other category will outweigh the interests of such frivolous RTI Applicants.
The current milieu of the pandemic COVID-19 has caused a significant upheaval in the functioning of all establishments and businesses alike. While for the Commission, this translates into a huge backlog of Appeals and Complaints. In circumstances such as this, there is a pressing need to identify cases such as the ones under reference for cumulative disposal in order to facilitate expedient disposal of cases of genuine information seekers. In other words, this is where the aforementioned juxtaposition comes into play as the Commission seeks to strike a fine balance between the interests of genuine information seekers, while keeping the menace of frivolous RTI Applicants under check.
DECISION Adverting to the aforesaid observations, Commission has considered the instant cases on their merits and finds that the largely cyclostyled Second Appeals, the absence of documents referred in the Second Appeal and mixing up of cases owing to repetition has left little scope for any intervention at this stage. In view of this, particularly, above referred Appeals at Serial Nos. 6, 10, 12, 13,and 28 are dismissed without any action. Further, CPIO, Kandla Port Trust in some cases has denied information pertaining to service related information of third parties citing Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act which is deemed appropriate in light of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commission & Orsand Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam. Similarly,CPIO, Kandla Port Trust has in some cases expressed the inability to provide information citing Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, and Commission finds no reason to interfere with the same in light of the aforesaid discussion regarding the voluminous nature of most of these RTI Applications. Further more, the reply provided by CPIO, Ministry of Shipping in the cases referred at Serial Nos. 27 & 28and the reply provided by CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission in the cases referred at Serial Nos.24, 25 & 26 is deemed appropriate. As regards, the case referred at Serial No. 16 above, the same is dismissed as not maintainable/infructuous since Appellant has enclosed a multitude of CPIO replies and FAA orders corresponding to different RTI Applications and First Appeals, while the only RTI Application that is enclosed is an incomplete copy and even as a defect memo was sent to the Appellant by the Central Registry vide letter dated 18.01.2018, Appellant 16 Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
reverted back on 02.04.2018 and cited the annexures to a previous Complaint/Appeal dated 26.09.2017 for perusal. Now, it has been brought to the attention of the bench by the attached registry that an earlier Appeal filed on 26.09.2017 based on the same RTI Application dated 16.04.2016, incomplete copy of which has been enclosed with the present Complaint has been already heard and decided vide File No.CIC/KPOTR/A/2017/178675 on 16.04.2019.
As regards, case numbers referred at Serial Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29 of the above chart, Commission finds that no reply of the respective CPIO is on record. While, for cases referred at Serial Nos. 1 & 2 above, only partial replies are available on record. The prima-facie deemed refusal of the respective CPIOs to provide information is although viewed adversely, however, keeping in view the discussion on the apparent misuse of RTI Act by the Appellant, Commission deems it fit to afford an opportunity to the respective CPIOs to put forward their submissions in this regard.
In doing so, Commission directs the following Respondents to send their written submission explaining the reasons for prima-facie not providing any reply on the RTI Applications referred in the cases detailed below:
● Respondent No.1- Serial Nos. 1,2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ● Respondent No.3- Serial No. 29, of the above chart.
The aforesaid directions should be complied by the respective Respondents within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Registry attached with this bench shall send a copy of the corresponding Second Appeals to the respective CPIOs as per the above directions.
Further, Appellant is again advised to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future.
With the above observations and direction, the Appeal(s) are disposed of.17
Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
द काशिस हा) Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काशिस हा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140/ [email protected] हरो सादसेन,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 18 Sanjay Bhaty vs. Kandla Port Trust, Gujarat & Ors.
ANNEXURE
1. CIC/DSHIP/A/2019/100027
2. CIC/DSHIP/A/2019/100028
3. CIC/DSHIP/A/2019/100030
4. CIC/DSHIP/A/2019/100031
5. CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100050
6. CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/107441
7. CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/107440
8. CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100051
9. CIC/MPTRS/A/2018/144603
10. CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100053
11. CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100054
12. CIC/KPOTR/C/2019/100680 + CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/100052
13. CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/101192
14. CIC/KPOTR/A/2019/104857
15. CIC/KPOTR/C/2018/121979
16. CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/132118
17. CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/132119
18. CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/173853
19. CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/173854
20. CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/173855
21. CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/619422
22. CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/619506
23. CIC/KPOTR/A/2018/621799
24. CIC/CVCOM/A/2019/105348
25. CIC/CVCOM/A/2019/100029
26. CIC/CVCOM/A/2019/101189
27. CIC/DSHIP/A/2019/100032
28. CIC/DSHIP/A/2018/121978
29. CIC/DSHIP/A/2018/620787 19