Central Information Commission
Jai Bhagwan Jain vs Gnctd on 8 August, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/296533
F. No.CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/300996
F. No.CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/300994
F. No.CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/300993
F. No.CIC/IHBAS/A/2017/112196
F. No.CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/296531
F. No.CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/296532
F. No.CIC/IHBAS/A/2017/181818
F. No.CIC/IHBAS/A/2017/181820
F. No.CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/296534
F. No.CIC/SA/A/2016/001834
F. No.CIC/SA/A/2016/001835
F. No.CIC/SA/A/2016/001837
F. No.CIC/IHBAS/A/2017/184549
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001471
F. No.CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/300991
Date of Hearing : 02.08.2017
Date of Decision : 02.08.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Jai Bhagwan Jain
Respondent : PIO
Institute of Human Behaviour &
Allied Sciences, GNCTD
Through: Sh. S K Singh OH
JD(Admn) and Sh. Satish Kumar,
DEO
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
S. No. Case No. Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
1 296533 23.04.2016 20.05.2016 06.06.2016 23.07.2016
2 300996 19.05.2016 17.06.2016 27.06.2016 10.08.2016
3 300994 16.05.2016 16.06.2016 27.06.2016 10.08.2016
4 300943 23.04.2016 20.05.2016 - 10.08.2016
5 112196 05.05.2016 21.06.2016 26.07.2016 02.09.2016
6 296531 23.04.2016 20.05.2016 06.06.2016 -
Page 1 of 12
7 295632 05.05.2016 04.06.2016 13.06.2016 23.07.2016
8 181818 09.05.2016 22.07.2016 24.08.2016 -
9 181820 20.07.2016 20.08.2016 26.08.2016 -
10 296534 05.05.2016 04.06.2016 13.06.2016 23.07.2016
11 001834 30.03.2016 29.04.2016 09.05.2016 -
12 001835 30.03.2016 29.04.2016
13 001837 30.03.2016 04.05.2016 16.05.2016 -
14 184549 13.06.2016 15.07.2016 26.07.2016 02.09.2016
15 300991 16.05.2016 26.05.2016 06.06.2016 11.08.2016
16 001471 28.11.2015 11.02.2016 - 05.04.2016
Since the captioned appeals have been filed by the same appellant and
involve similar queries they are clubbed for the purpose of adjudication.
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/296533 Vide RTI application dated 23.04.2016, the appellant sought following information:-
1. The date from which the payment of sanitation is being made for 159336 Sqr meter and the name of the agency to which this payment was being made w.e.f. 1999.
2. It was ordered by JD to the excess payment made by the details of action taken may be supplied.
3. How much amount was paid in excess to the agency.
4. The amount has been recovered or not?
5. Who is responsible for this excess payment.
6. Now how much area the payment is being made and name of the agency may be supplied.
The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 20.05.2016 against each query. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA heard the appellant and the CPIO on 23.07.2016, decided to reschedule the case again when the appellant provides the document as mentioned by him in the said appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/300996 Vide RTI application dated 19.05.2016, the appellant sought information regarding M/s Vishakha Facility Management that in the payment sheet of 2013, 473 workers were shown as deployed. However in the ECR of EPF the names reflects 288 persons and in the ESIC record there were 471 workers. The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 17.06.2016 against Page 2 of 12 each query. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated 10.08.2016 stated that the information sought by the appellant are opinions & reasons which does not come under the purview of the RTI Act and is exempted under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. However information in respect of queries number 1,2&3 were directed to be provided to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/300994 Vide RTI application dated 16.05.2016, the appellant sought information regarding Sh. Rakesh Chaudhary, an alleged criminal who had been given a bogus medical certificate for getting bail from the court. The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 16.06.2016 against each query. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated 10.08.2016 upheld the CPIO's reply. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/300993 Vide RTI application dated 23.04.2016, the appellant wanted to know name of TAC committee and purchase committee/rate contract fixing committee of purchases in 15 cases. The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 20.05.2016 against each query. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated 10.08.2016 advised the PIO to provide the name of members of TEC and Rate Contract Committee or Purchase Committee to the appellant in a maximum period of eight weeks. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/IHBAS/A/2017/112196 Vide RTI application dated 05.05.2016, the appellant sought information regarding the different audit party who visited to scrutinize office records of the Respondent in the past ten years. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.06.2016 stating that information sought being lengthy and voluminous, the appellant was requested to inspect the file. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated 02.09.2016 advised the PIO to provide free of cost the photocopies of 192 pages of the document which the appellant inspected, within four weeks. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Page 3 of 12CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/296531 Vide RTI application dated 23.04.2016, the appellant sought information regarding the details of action taken in the case of physical verification of the workers of M/s Vishakha Facility Management. The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 20.05.2016 from available records. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The first appeal remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/296532 Vide RTI application dated 05.05.2016, the appellant sought following information:-
"It is submitted that the then Joint Director, while considering the payment of bonus, observed on 2.11.2013 that M/s Vishakha facility management Pvt. Ltd. submitted names of 577 workers while checking names of these workers the list generated from ESIC record names of 415 workers were pursued the similar list was found available in the monthly payment bill for the month of August 2013 file. The Joint Director ordered to AO to take necessary action."
The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 04.06.2016 against each query. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated 23.07.2016 informed as under:-
1. The FAA noted that the appellant has used the opportunity of linking this appeal to "taunt"/"question" since there is no information sought and in considered view of the FAA, there is no further action required, regardless of the open issue still whether the claim by the appellant in that other case is correct or not and whether the information provided was false.
2. Secondly, the PIO has stated that no order at any time was issued by the then JDA as claimed by the appellant to the PIO. The FAA advised the PIO to verify one more time if any "order" had been issued.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/IHBAS/A/2017/181818 Vide RTI application dated 09.05.2016, the appellant sought information regarding vide memo under reference that Rs. 1,18,46,860 was sanctioned for payment to M/s Vishakha Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 22.07.2016 against each query. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The first appeal remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Page 4 of 12CIC/IHBAS/A/2017/181820 Vide RTI application dated 09.05.2016, the appellant sought information regarding meeting was held with Hon'ble speaker Vidhan Sabha Sh. Ram Niwas Goel and IHBAS officers. The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 20.08.2016 against each query. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The first appeal remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/296534 Vide RTI application dated 05.05.2016, the appellant sought information regarding the amount of bonus for the year 2013-14, the AO sent a proposal of payment of Rs. 3924375 to Joint Director for approval of Joint Director. The same refused and sent to account section for rechecking. The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 04.06.2016 against each query. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA directed the CPIO to trace all available information on file record about the query no 2 and 3 of the RTI application. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/SA/A/2016/001834 Vide RTI application dated 20.03.2016, the appellant sought information regarding the M/s Sarvesh Security Service DGR region 114, 413 Pocket F Mayur Vihar Phase 2 has supplied security services to IHBAS with the effect from 01.10.2006 to 01.01.2009. The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 29.04.2016. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The first appeal remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/SA/A/2016/001835 Vide RTI application dated 30.03.2016, the appellant sought information regarding the uniform allowance/payment in lieu of uniform in last ten years. The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 29.04.2016. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The first appeal remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Page 5 of 12CIC/SA/A/2016/001837 Vide RTI application dated 30.03.2016, the appellant sought list of operations conducted in your hospital during last 5 years. The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 04.05.2016. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The first appeal remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/IHBAS/A/2017/184549 Vide RTI application dated 18.06.2011, the appellant sought information regarding the Sh. N.G. Desai has been reappointed for the post of Director IHBAS Dilshad Garden Delhi. The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 15.07.2016. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA advised the PIO to provide a copy of the Minutes of the meeting which contains the current RRs for the post of Director, IHBAS. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/YA/A/2016/001471 Vide RTI application dated 18.06.2011, the appellant sought information regarding the Sh. N.G. Desai was working as Director IHBAS. The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 11.02.2016. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/IHBAS/A/2016/300991 Vide RTI application dated 16.05.2016, the appellant sought information regarding Sh. Devender Pal Singh Bhuller, one terrorist who was sentenced of death, was remained in inistitute/hospital due to some illness. The CPIO furnished the information vide letter dated 26.05.2016. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA advised the PIO to provide the document in respect of q.no. 1 to 4 & 5 within two weeks. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing:
1. The Respondents appeared to the exclusion of the appellant during the hearing and submitted that the issues raised in these RTI applications (and appeals arising therefrom) had been duly Page 6 of 12 adjudicated by this Commission vide order dated 27.12.2016 in the form of a decision by Information Commissioner, Prof. M Sridhar Acharyulu. Relevant portion of the said order whereby the appeals had been decided are as follows:
".....3. Appellant stated that he demands the list of names of the employees outsourced for security along with their ESI code numbers, EPF account numbers, wage sheets for the month of June and September. The appellant also seeks inspection of files pertaining to M/S Shiwalik, M/s Sarvesh and Vishakha Enterprises. The appellant also stated that 24 more RTI applications are pending before the Commission and PIO stated the said RTI applications pertain to the same and similar issues. Both the parties agreed for hearing and disposing of all the pending applications.
4. The Commissioner directs the respondent authority to facilitate inspection and provide the required documents to the appellant on 28.12.2016 at 11.00 am. Hence, all the second appeals of the appellant are closed."
The aforesaid order remained un-challenged before the High Court and has thus attained finality.
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Commission, the Respondent provided inspection of the Billing fees for the period between Jan 2015 to Aug 2016, comprising of 20 files pertaining to M/s Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. to the appellant on 28.12.2016, in compliance of the directions of the Commission. This fact has been recorded by the Respondent in the letter dated 04.02.2017 and duly acknowledged by the appellant who has signed the said letter dated 04.02.2017 issued by Sh. S K Singh, Offg. Joint Director(Admn/PIO). The relevant excerpts of the letter are as follows:
"2) As per the directions of the Commission, you had inspected the Billing files for the period from January, 2015 to August, 2016 (20 files pertaining to M/s Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd on schedule date and time given by CIC i.e. on 28.12.2016.
3) The desired documents which were identified by you during the inspection have been photocopied and are enclosed herewith (total pages 2275)."
3. The Respondent has further submitted a written submission dated 24.07.2017 providing a list of the all the appeals have been duly responded on various dates and by virtue of the decision of the Page 7 of 12 Commission cited above, the appeals have been closed. The relevant excerpts of the Respondent's submissions are as follows:
"It is pertinent to mention here that as per the decision of Central Information Commission dated 27.12.2016 received in the Director Office vide letter No. Dir/450 dated 03.02.2017 in respect of Notice of Hearing held on 22.12.16 vide F.No.CIC/SA/A/2016/001507/ 001508/ 001562/ 001351/001352 against RTIs(003/005/051/071) of Mr. Jaibhagwan Jain the Commission directed to facilitate inspection and provde the required documents to the appellant and all the second appeals of the appellant were closed.
In this connection, he had inspected the billing files for the period from January, 2015 to August, 2016 (20 files) pertaining to M/s Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. on 28.12.2016 as per schedule dated and time given by CIC. The desired documents which were identified by him during the inspection have been given to him (total pages 2275) vide our letter dated 003/005/071/RTI(2016)/Estt/IHBAS/078-81 dated 4.2.17 the copy of the same is enclosed herewith".
Decision:
4. Perusal of records of the case as well as the submissions of the Respondent indicate that the appeals in question have been already adjudicated by a co- ordinate Bench and after addressing the germane query of the appellant, the Commission had closed the appeals with specific directions to the Respondent. The Respondents, have complied with the directions of the Commission and proof thereof has also been submitted during the hearing today. Inspection of 20 files have been provided and 2275 pages of information have already been provided free of cost to the appellant. These facts are undisputed, since appellant has endorsed his signatures in the documents.
5. The Appellant appears to have embarked on a mission of data mining and/or harassing the public authority by overawing them with the sheer volume of information sought and the multiplicity of his queries.
This cannot, by any chance, be allowed by the Commission as has been held by this Bench time and again.
6. This Commission has by its decision dated 30.06.2015 while adjudicating appeals no. CIC/YA/A/2014/001071, 001123,001210 disposed of a batch of fifteen matters of one Mr. M Danasegar holding as follows:
"......The Commission finds this case to be a classic instance of blatant misuse of RTI Act by the appellant, who is a disgruntled Page 8 of 12 employee of the same organisation, through relentlessly filing of a series of RTI applications to harass officials of a public authority. The information sought in most of his RTI applications has no public interest at all and veers around the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. In the process of seeking the same, the appellant has resorted to reckless data mining on a humongous scale. Still, information has been provided by the respondent authorities as per record on some points and the rest denied for the reason that it is either voluminous or not available or relates to clarification/interpretation. The appellant, motivated by personal interest, has clearly sought such information with the vengeful motive to harass the officers through a flurry of RTI applications. The RTI Act cannot be allowed to be misused or abused and to become a tool of oppression or for intimidation of officials striving to do their duty. ..."
7. The Commission in its aforesaid decision placed reliance on the Apex Court decision in the case of Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed "....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. ...."
8. It has been the consistent stance of this Commission in line with the well established law of the land with respect to such unnecessary and frivolous litigation that an information seeker cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information such 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 and the very spirit of the RTI Act. While the right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India, it has been held by various Courts of this country including the Supreme Court in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well informed democracy is transparency. But unless a healthy balance is maintained between transparency and overburdening of the public authority with vexatious RTI applications misusing the RTI Act, the entire regime of right to information will collapse under its own sheer burden.
9. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed that:
Page 9 of 12"................ 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. ...................."
10. In the other celebrated judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. , the Apex Court held as follows:
"...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 interest. ...................................
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..."
11. In the light of the aforementioned discussions and the settled position of law which are akin to the appeals at hand, it is noted that the public authority has already provided enough information to the appellant. The matters have been adjudicated already by a co-ordinate Bench as noted above and compliance of directions of the Commission has been done by the Respondent. The Commission, therefore warns the Page 10 of 12 appellant to be more careful in future and refrain from this relentless litigation over an issue which has now attained finality by efflux of time. It is accordingly observed that since no cause of action survives in these cases, hence the appeals should be disposed of with no further orders.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-
JAI BHAGWAN JAIN Public Information Officer under House No.-57, Gali RTI, No.-1, Gulab Vatika, Shri S. K.Singh-Officiating Loni, Ghaziabad-201102 (Uttar Joint Pradesh). Director-(Admin.), Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences (Government of NCT of Delhi), Dilshad Garden, Shahadara, Delhi-110095.
First Appellate Authority under First Appellate Authority under RTI RTI Dr. Sunil Kumar -Director & Dr. Nimesh G. Desai-Director & FAA, Institute of Human FAA, Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Behaviour & Allied Sciences (Government of NCT Sciences (Government of NCT of Delhi), Dilshad Garden, of Delhi), Dilshad Garden,
Shahadara, Delhi-110095. Shahadara, Delhi-110095.Page 11 of 12 Page 12 of 12