Central Information Commission
Mrajit Kumar Roy vs Ministry Of Shipping,Road Transport & ... on 27 March, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001032
F.No.CIC/SS/C/2013/000403-YA
F.No.CIC/YA/C/2014/000178
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002367
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001537
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000742
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001535
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001400
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001284
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000821
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000865
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000876
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000646
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002616
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000879
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001285
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002614
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002619
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001403
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001691
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000763
Date of Hearing : 24.03.2015
Date of Decision : 27.03.2015
Appellant/Complainant : Shri A.K. Roy
Noida/Chennai
Respondent : Shri U.K. Sahai, PIO/Asst.Secy
Smt. D. Sai Amutha Devi, FAA/Secy.
Inland Waterways Authority of India Noida & Shri Gurmukh Singh, PIO Shri Awadhesh Kumar, HC Inland Waterways Authority of India Patna & Shri Chandramani Rout, Dir.(IWT) Ministry of Shipping New Delhi Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Both parties are present and are heard through Video Conferencing. The appellant vide several RTIs has raised multiple queries. Details of all these are reproduced below in a tabulated form:
Page 1 of 15Appeal No. RTI Date PIO's reply First appeal FAA's order Page 2 of 15 001032 18.04.2013 05.06.2013 15.07.2013 22.10.2013 000403 21.05.2012 12.07.2012 N.A. N.A. 000178 01.01.2014 05.02.2014 03.02.2014 & 03.03.2014 11.02.2014 002367 21.03.2014 01.04.2014 05.05.2014 03.07.2014 001537 24.02.2014 01.04.2014 11.04.2014 12.05.2014 000742 02.03.2013 15.05.2013 & 03.06.2013 & 23.07.2013 & 08.07.2013 06.08.2013 23.12.2013 001535 10.02.2014 07.03.2014 17.04.2014 12.05.2014 001400 23.09.2013 12.12.2013 16.12.2013 23.12.2013 001284 26.09.2011 07.10.2011 28.12.2011 22.04.2014 000821 06.12.2013 12.12.2013 16.12.2013 03.03.2014 000865 27.11.2012 No reply & 30.01.2013 & 29.10.2013 16.09.2013 11.10.2013 000876 04.10.2013 05.11.2013 16.12.2013 23.10.2013 000646 04.10.2013 05.11.2013 16.12.2013 21.04.2014 002616 14.06.2014 27.06.2014 27.07.2014 11.09.2014 000879 02.01.2014 24.01.2014 27.01.2014 17.02.2014 001285 10.02.2014 09.03.2014 24.03.2014 01.05.2014 002614 11.06.2014 09.07.2014 30.07.2014 28.08.2014 002619 15.05.2014 18.07.2014 28.07.2014 02.09.2014 001403 11.09.2013 30.09.2013 & 29.10.2013 20.11.2013 23.10.2013 001691 10.12.2013 23.01.2014 23.01.2014 14.02.2014 000763 09.12.2013 23.01.2014 27.01.2014 14.02.2014 As the appellant and the respondent are same in the above 21 appeals/complaints, they are being clubbed and heard & decided together.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001032 The appellant sought information regarding copies of acquittances of Shri S.M. Mishra, DEO for the year 2010-11 and 2012-13, details of disqualifying Shri U.K. Pandey, rejecting his bid for floating terminal work at Semaria, certified copies of financial/technical bids, registration certificate of Shri U.K. Pandey etc. PIO/Director in his reply provided information in 48 pages. The FAA/Vice Chairperson directed PIO, Patna to provide copies of five documents (the same was alleged by the appellant to be not clear). On the remaining points, the FAA held that no further information needs to be provided.
The appellant stated that the PIO demanded additional fee, which is against the provisions of the RTI Act. He stated that the FAA's order was not complied with but the information was provided to him only on 21.03.2015. The respondent stated that the information was scattered over a large number of files and that it related to different sections. She expressed regret and stated that there was no intention of denying the information to the appellant, but that time was consumed in compiling the information he sought.
F.No. CIC/SS/C/2013/000403-YA The complainant has sought proof of his typing (speed/accuracy), its verification, coordination ability, proof/evidence for keeping his APAR pending for review till 26.01.2012, etc. PIO/Director in his reply stated that for the grading of the APAR for the complainant's Page 3 of 15 performance, were given as per the observations during the year 2010-11 only, with which the reviewing officer was well in agreement.
The complainant stated that proper reply was not given by the PIO. PIO, Patna stated that the complainant was informed that his ACR was received late from the Bhagalpur Office, which is why delay was caused in his APAR.
F.No. CIC/YA/C/2014/000178 The complainant has sought for details of name/age of children of Shri R.N. Bajpai, name of wife and her profession, confirmation whether R.N. Bajpai has availed tuition fee for his children, HRA drawn, whether R.N. Bajpai's wife used to draw medical/tuition fees/LTC etc. On not receiving any reply from the PIO, within the prescribed time, the complainant filed a first appeal. The PIO/AS (Estt.) in his reply denied information on point 1 u/s 8(1)(j) and for the remaining queries, referred to the CIC's decision dated 20.06.2013 in F.No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000961. The FAA in her order upheld the decision of the CPIO.
The complainant stated that denial of information on Point 1 by PIO u/s 8(1)(j) is wrong as the information has been sought in public interest and the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament cannot be denied to him. He further stated that the FAA and PIO, in connivance, have not provided information him. The respondent stated that he had sought information regarding details of name/age of children of Shri R.N. Bajpai which was personal information of a third party u/s 8(1)(j) and that for the remaining points the Commission's decision was referred to and the complainant was directed to file separate RTI applications.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002367 The appellant sought for copies of TA bill along with hotel receipts/railway tickets for tours undertaken by Shri R.N. Bajpai to regional offices of Guwahati, Kolkata and Patna during December 2013 to February 2014. PIO in his reply provided information in 13 pages. The appellant contended in his first appeal that the information was given to him for August and November 2013 along with that of January 2014. The FAA upheld the PIO's reply.
The appellant stated that he does not have the relevant papers with him and that the Commission may decide the same on merit. The respondent stated that all the details of TA bills with hotel receipts/railway tickets were provided to the appellant. She stated that the appellant has contended that he wanted all tour details for specific period only, whereas the officer concerned had gone for tours only in August & November 2013 and in January 2014.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001537 The appellant sought copies of letters issued by M/o Shipping to the respondent authority for recovery of excess amount drawn by Shri R.N. Bajpai, Shri K.S. Rao and Shri N. Sivaraman, along with compliance report of instructions of M/o Shipping by the respondent authority. The RTI application was transferred by PIO/US, M/o Shipping to Chairman, IWAI vide letter dated 06.03.2014. The CPIO in his reply provided the required information. The appellant in his first appeal contended that the copies of internal audit report were provided by the PIO, which he had not requested. The FAA upheld the PIO's decision.
The appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided. He stated that he did not seek the copy of internal audit report but the letters issued by the Ministry of Shipping to the persons concerned. The respondent, IWAI stated that no such letters were issued and that information sought regarding recovery of excess amount drawn from the persons concerned Page 4 of 15 was a part internal audit report, copy of which was provided to the appellant. The respondent from the Ministry of Shipping stated that reply letter dt. 22.04.2014 was sent to the appellant on receipt of copy of first appeal dt. 11.04.2014 from the appellant. He stated that the Ministry had sent no such letter to IWAI for recovery of tuition fee, etc. F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000742 The appellant sought information on 14 points relating to MACP granted to Shri R.N. Bajpai, list of all Group 'A' & 'B' employees who were granted MACP/ACP apart from promotion, name/fathers name and complete postal address of contract employees in Kolkata and Guwahati along with their place of duty, copy of sanction orders, details of wages paid (Staff wise), list of all ad-hoc promotions of Group 'A'& 'B' etc. PIO/AS(A), Noida transferred the RTI application on points 6 & 7 to PIO, Patna, points 5 & 10 to PIO, Guwahati, points 4 & 10 to PIO, Kolkata, point 9 to PIO, Kochi. PIO, Noida provided a point wise reply vide letter dated 15.05.2013. The appellant filed first appeal vide letter dated 03.06.2013. The PIO, Noida vide letter dated 08.07.2013 provided information on points 4, 10 & 13. The FAA in her order dated 23.07.2013 directed PIO, Patna to provide information on points 6 and requested the appellant to visit the Kolkata office or the head office for inspection of documents on point 7. The FAA in a separate order dt. 23.07.2013 directed PIO, Noida to review the information given on point 8 and for the remaining points, directed the appellant to file a fresh application. The appellant vide letters dated 06.08.2013 and 29.08.2013 filed first appeals (two) again. The FAA, in her third order dated 23.12.2013, w.r.t. the same RTI dated 02.03.2013, stated that the relevant information available with the PIOs has already been provided to the appellant.
The appellant that the case be treated on merits as he could not locate the relevant papers with him. The respondent stated information was sought on 14 Points which was related to different PIOs and was scattered over a large number of files. Further, she stated that information was provided to the appellant, but later on he had sought clarifications on the same, which were denied, as the same were not raised in the RTI application dt. 02.03.2013.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001535 The appellant sought information regarding action taken on his complaint dated 01.01.2014. The CPIO in his reply provided a copy of office memorandum wherein it was stated that the competent authority, having reviewed the allegations made, has instructed that the appellant may refrain from making allegations without any proper basis against employees as the same results in wasting valuable office working hours without any proper output. The FAA in her order stated that the complaint was disposed of by the Chairman, with the comments already informed to him and that the same have also been given by the CPIO.
The appellant stated that information provided by the PIO is incorrect and wrong. The respondent stated that the appellant had raised allegations against a number of employees of the respondent authority and that the Competent Authority, having perused the same, had requested the appellant in this case to refrain from making allegations without any proper basis against employees. She apprised the Commission that some of the employees had claimed tuitions fee for more than two children initially and that later on, the same was recovered from them. She stated that this was before the appellant's RTI application. She stated that the excess amount has been recovered from some employees and that the same is pending for one or two.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001400 Page 5 of 15 The appellant sought information on 18 points regarding ESI numbers/details with photos, in month-wise format, submitted to ESI, Patna by concerned employees as per list of Chinar Shipping & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, ESI details deposited month-wise to EPF Commissioner from July 2012 to Sept. 2013, total number of contractors working under the Regional Office, Patna since July 2012 to Sept. 2013 with their details, details of beautification/construction of Ganga Conf. Hall, copies of work orders, comparative statements, tender (financial/technical bids) documents, details of hired taxis (5), copy of work orders and since when the taxis were engaged, work order copies of security guards deployed IWAI, Noida along with the agreement copy, confirmation regarding 5 employees being charge-sheeted, copy of note-sheets/order by Chairman, IWAI for installation of Bio-metric machine along with details of users/non-users, etc. PIO/AS(A&E) vide letter dt. 03.10.2013 transferred the RTI application on Points 1 to 4 & 12 to PIO, Patna and Point 18 to PIO, Guwahati. The appellant on non-receipt of information on the remaining from PIO, Noida filed first appeal on 07.11.2013. PIO, Noida in his reply stated that his RTI application already stands transferred to the concerned PIOs and denied the same referring to CIC's decision in file no. CIC/RM/A/2012/000961. The appellant filed first appeals dt. 12.11.2013 and 16.12.2013. The FAA in her order. 23.12.2013 upheld the PIO's decision.
The appellant stated that no information had been provided to him, but the same was provided to him vide letter dt. 20.03.2015. The respondent stated that the appellant's first appeal dt. 07.11.2013 and 12.11.2013 were disposed on 20.03.2015 as the same was inadvertently left. She expressed regret for the same.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001284 The appellant sought information on 19 points regarding entire leave record in the service book of Shri M. Kumar, entire tour advances receipts/adjustment/payment of TA bill, reasons for providing him tour, granting huge C/L and C/H, attendance for September 1995, entire movement orders for each tour, transfer order from Guwahati to Noida, copies of relevant cash book for total payments tours, all leave applications applied and actually availed, etc. PIO/Director requested the appellant to remit the fees for the RTI. The appellant vide letter dated 15.10.2011 paid the fees. PIO, Guwahati in his reply stated that the information is voluminous and that the same is under compilation; the total no. of pages are approximately 75 and man hours spent for searching old records amounts to 75 hours. He requested the appellant to pay Rs. 150/- (75 x 2) towards photocopying charges and Rs. 370/- towards searching charges. The appellant vide letter dated 25.11.2011 paid Rs. 110/- as photocopying charges and denied paying the searching charges. CPIO vide letter dated 12.12.2011 provided information consisting of 128 pages. The FAA while further clarifying the PIOs reply stated that information had been provided by the PIO.
The appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided. He stated that the respondent authority, in general, does not provide complete information in response to any of the RTI applications. The respondent stated that the appellant in the instant RTI application dt. 26.09.2011 is referring to his appeal dt. 01.07.2011, which was against the RTI application dt. 26.04.2011. She stated that the Commission in F.No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001290/BS has already decided the matter on RTI application dt. 26.04.2011 and that in compliance of the same, information was provided to the appellant. The respondent stated that information in response to even the instant RTI application dt. 26.09.2011 was provided.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000821 Page 6 of 15 The appellant sought inquiry report submitted by Director, IWAI in respect of Shri T.K. Biswas, names of dependents of Shri U.K. Sahai, officiating with proof, copy of appointment letter of Shri S. Ismail, list of Group 'C' employees who were not granted ACP/MACP along with reasons for the same etc. PIO, Noida stated that the inquiry report cannot be made available at this stage as the process of disciplinary cases is yet to be completed on point 1 and for the remaining points directed the appellant to refer to CIC's decision dated 20.06.2013 in file no. CIC/RM/A/2012/000961. The FAA upheld the CPIOs decision.
The appellant stated that the respondent has denied providing information time and again, referring to the CIC's decision, which does not apply to his case. He stated that denial u/s 8(1)
(h) on Point is also wrong as mere pendency of proceedings cannot be a ground of not providing information. The respondent stated that the proceedings were pending when the RTI application was replied to, which is why the same was denied u/s 8(1)(h). She stated that the proceedings have now been completed. She further stated that the appellant has sought information on 8 points which does not relate to one dept. or one file and that the same relates to a number of PIOs and is scattered over a number of files. She stated that compilation of information sought by the appellant would lead to a large diversion of resources.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000865 The appellant sought information on 18 points regarding appointment letter of Smt. S. Nair, UDC recruited in 1987, reservation roaster for all groups for promotion/recruitment since the year1986, criteria/norms/rules for granting ACP/MACP, names and date of total posts (Group A, B, C & D) from which the same is lying vacant, details of postings of entire group of IWAI, qualification/experience for the post of Director, current seniority list for all UDCs since 1986, name of repairer of survey equipments etc. PIO, Noida in his reply dt. 17.12.2012 stated that the information was denied u/s 8(1)(j) as the information sought by the appellant was mostly personal, disclosure of which had no relation to any public activity and that there was no public interest. The appellant filed first appeal on 30.01.2013, however, the same was inadvertently left and was only dealt on 16.09.2013, in which information was provided to the appellant, as per record. The appellant filed another first appeal vide letter dt. 11.10.2013. The FAA in his order recorded that the appellant sought additional information in his first appeal for which he may file a fresh application and directed the PIO to provide the readable copy of Annexure 5 to the appellant as already provided before. CPIO vide letter dt. 03.12.2013 provided the same.
The appellant stated that the case may be dealt on merit as he could not trace his papers concerned with this appeal. The respondent stated that information as per record was provided to the appellant and that the information sought on most of the points was in the nature of seeking clarifications.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000876 & F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000646 The appellant sought information on 11 points regarding bio-metric attendance report for August & September 2013 for Varanasi Office, total details of stones purchased for terminal at IWAI, Varanasi, total no. of IWAI contractors blacklisted by IWAI and the reasons for the same, date of joining of Shri U.K. Sahai and details of his pay grades, when was RR published along with its notifications, list of personnel posted in various offices of IWAI along with their designations, etc. The PIO vide letter dated 08.10.2013 transferred the application on points 1 to 4 to PIO, Patna, who vide letter dated 05.11.2013 requested the appellant to deposit Rs. 64/- to obtain information in 32 pages, after the same was received from PIO, Varanasi vide letter dated 26.10.2013. The appellant filed first appeal vide letter dated 07.11.2013 against deemed refusal of information by PIO, Noida. Vide letter dated 29.11.2013, he deposited the requisite Page 7 of 15 amount to PIO, Patna who vide letter dated 03.12.2013 provided him the information. PIO, Noida stated that information on Point 1 shall be provided by PIO, Patna for which the RTI application was already transferred to him and for the remaining points directed the appellant to refer to CIC's decision dated 20.06.2013 in file no. CIC/RM/A/2012/000961. The appellant vide letters dt. 16.12.2013 filed two separate first appeals. The FAA vide order dt. 23.12.2013 upheld the PIO, Noida's reply and vide order dt. 05.02.2014 directed PIO, Patna to provide clear and visible information on Point 1 related to bio-metric attendance.
The appellant stated that the FAA's order was not complied with. He stated that the original bio- metric attendance report was not given to him, but it was typed and then given. The PIO alleged that it amounts to concealment of information and that the FAA & PIO, in connivance, have denied him correct information from time and again. The respondent stated the original biometric record is only maintained for 2 months and after that the data is available in the typed form. She stated that the appellant in his first appeals has been making cross-references to other RTI applications filed by him and that it is very difficult to ascertain what exactly the appellant requires. She stated that there is no intention of concealing information from the appellant; they have provided the information to him, as was available on record.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002616 The appellant sought confirmation whether M/s Chinar Shipping had purchased HSD as a bulk consumer directly from the oil companies or retailers along with photocopies of entire bill/challans for purchase of HSD during the tenure of contract. PIO, Kolkata intimated that the agreement entered into M/s Chinar Shipping does not envisage any stipulation on methodology of procurement of HSD and as such the information called is not available with the PIO. The FAA in her order directed PIO, Kolkata to provide copies of all bills/challans towards purchase of HSD submitted by M/s Chinar Shipping.
The appellant stated that no information was been provided to him till date, but the same was only provided vide letter dt. 20.03.2015. The respondent expressed regret and stated that the FAA's order dt. 11.09.2014 was not marked to the PIO; moreover the FAA had directed PIO, Kolkata to provide the copies of challans/bills to the Engineer in Chief and not appellant. She stated that on receipt of the notice in the instant case, the same was found out and information (in 133 pages) was provided to the appellant, free of cost.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000879 The appellant sought information regarding appointment letter of Shri K.S. Rao, copies of his promotions, orders of his MACP/ACP granted, audit objection for fixation of his pay, his transfer order, grading, etc. PIO, Noida provided information on point 1 and for the remaining points directed the appellant to refer to CIC's decision dated 20.06.2013 in file no. CIC/RM/A/2012/000961. The FAA directed the appellant to inspect the documents on a mutually agreed date and time with PIO, Noida on point 1 and upheld the PIOs decision for the rest.
The appellant stated that the PIO provided information only on Point 1 but the remaining points were denied citing the Commission's decision, which does not apply to his case as he has sought information regarding one person. The respondent stated that the appellant was allowed inspection or record, an opportunity which he did not avail. On query by the Commission as to why was the inspection provided when the appellant is in Chennai, the respondent stated that at time of offering inspection, the appellant was posted in the Noida Branch. The appellant stated that he does not wish to inspect the documents, but he wants information. The respondent stated Page 8 of 15 that the inspection allowed to the appellant as he had alleged that the information given to him was not clear and was illegible. She stated that the document concerned is of the year 1988 and the paper quality is such that the Xerox is not clear. She stated that information on remaining points is scattered over a number files and that the same cannot be provided to him, ha can come and inspect the relevant record.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001285 The appellant sought copies of letters sent to M/o Shipping in respect of Smt. Rima Nair for her grievance lodged with the Ministry, copies of representations and clarifications for MACP for Smt. R. Nair, Smt. Singhari and himself. PIO, Noida stated that information sought by the appellant is not specific and referred to CIC's decision dated 20.06.2013 in file no. CIC/RM/A/2012/000961. The FAA upheld the CPIOs decision.
The appellant stated that the PIO had denied the information sought but later on provided the same, which amounts to concealment of information. He requested that the PIO should be penalised for the same. The respondent stated that the PIO in his reply had requested the appellant to be specific in what exactly he is seeking, as the record pertaining to Smt. Rima Nair contained 3 voluminous files running into thousands of pages. She stated that the same was provided to the appellant in response to another RTI application, as he had sought clear cut information. She stated that there was no malafide on their part to conceal any information.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002614 The appellant sought information regarding his posting due to the transfer of Shri T.V. Prasad, copy of note-sheet proposing his transfer from Bhagalpur, copy of note-sheet proposing his posting due to Shri S. Mazumdar, copy of note-sheet proposing his transfer due to promotion of Smt. Usha Venugopal, etc. PIO, Noida provided point-wise information to the appellant. The FAA upheld the PIO's decision.
The appellant stated that complete information was not provided by the PIO. HE stated that the enclosures along with the information sought should also have been provided. The respondent stated that the note-sheets given to the appellant also referred to other documents/information which the appellant had not sought, which is why he was requested to file a fresh application. The appellant contended that information on Point 1 was denied by the PIO. The respondent stated that the information was provided to the appellant as per available record; she stated that there was such noting made in the file as the appellant had sought and thus, the same could not have been provided.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002619 The appellant sought information regarding total expenditure met towards the vertical expansion of office-cum- R&D complex at Noida, name of fund received for such work, list of payments released to contractors along with details of approval/sanction, etc. PIO in his reply provided the requisite information. The FAA in his order recorded that the information is scattered in many files and that the appellant may inspect the relevant record on a mutually agreed date and time.
The appellant contended that the PIO offered inspection to him in order to deny the information to him. He stated that he does not wish to inspect the document, but wants information. The respondent stated that the details have been sought for a project which has been going on from the past 3 to 4 years. She stated that the appellant was offered inspection to the appellant so that Page 9 of 15 he can take the documents as are required by him and that copies of complete files cannot be provided to him as the same runs into 1000s of pages.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001403 The appellant sought information regarding copy of approval for appointment of Shri S.S. Pandian, number of applications received by search-cum-selection committee, reasons for not providing deputation allowance and for not starting a vigilance case against Shri S.S. Pandian on his application, copies of approval and clearance for promotion of Shri Gurmukh Singh, etc. PIO/US, Ministry of Shipping provided a point-wise reply to the appellant on Points 1, 2 & 5 vide letter dt. 30.09.2013 and PIO, IWAI, Noida on 23.10.2013. The FAA in his order further clarified the information on Point 6 and disposed of the first appeal filed by the appellant without any directions.
The appellant stated that the same may be treated on merits. The respondent stated that information as available on record has already been provided to the appellant.
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001691 & F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000763 The appellant sought information regarding the total posts sanctioned of Group 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' since 1986 with proof along with details of postings, copies of SIU reports issued from time to time by the Ministry, copy of letters issued by the Ministry regarding Shri Gurmukh Singh's promotion, details of search-cum-selection committee for appointment of Shri S.S. Pandian, confirmation/reasons, etc. PIO, Ministry of Shipping vide letter dt. 24.12.2013 transferred the RTI application to IWAI, Noida on Points 1 to 3 and requested the appellant to deposit Rs. 50 for obtaining information on the remaining points. PIO, IWAI, Noida vide letter dt. 23.01.2014 provided point-wise information on Points 1 & 2 to the appellant and denied Point 2 citing the CIC's decision dated 20.06.2013 in file no. CIC/RM/A/2012/000961. The FAA, IWAI directed the PIO to provide inspection to the appellant on Points 1 & 2. FAA/Ministry of Shipping in his order dt. 28.01.2014 upheld PIO/US's decision. PIO in his reply dt. 26.02.2014 provided point-wise information to the appellant, on receipt of payment of the requisite amount. The appellant filed another first appeal before the FAA/MoS which was disposed of by Director(IWT) disposed of the appeal requesting the appellant to seek specific information in bonafide public interest so that the same can be provided by least diversion of resources.
The appellant alleged that the Ministry transferred the RTI application when they were the custodian of the same. The respondent stated that the information as per record was provided to the appellant.
Decision:
After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission in F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001032 cautions the PIO/FAA to deal with RTI applications/first appeals as per provisions of the Act. The Commission also notes with serious concern that some information has been provided to the appellant, when the same should not have been provided and the exemption clause of Section 8 of RTI Act should have been invoked.
The Gujarat High Court in Reliance Industries Ltd. V. Gujarat State Information (AIR 2007 Guj 203) had held that Right to get information and right to treat the particular information as confidential is to be seen through the provisions of the Act, 2005 by Public Page 10 of 15 Information Officer before disclosing the information because once the information is disclosed, which is confidential, it is extremely difficult for the higher/Appellate Courts to put the clock back. Release of information is like air or smell. Once it is allowed to spread over, it cannot be called back, by Appellate Forums. There is no restriction upon applicant, for further transmission of information, after getting the same.
In F.No.CIC/SS/C/2013/000403-YA, the Commission is of the view that the complainant has sought proof of his typing (speed/accuracy), its verification, coordination ability and reasons for keeping his APAR pending for review till 26.01.2012, etc, which has been provided by the PIO, at the first instance and no further action is required in the instant case.
In F.No.CIC/YA/C/2014/000178, the Commission is of the view that the complainant has sought information regarding details of name/age of children of Shri R.N. Bajpai, name of wife and her profession, confirmation whether R.N. Bajpai has availed tuition fee for his children, HRA drawn, whether R.N. Bajpai's wife used to draw medical/tuition fees/LTC etc. The PIO denied information on point 1 invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. On the remaining queries, he has referred to the Commission's order dated 20.06.2013 in F.No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000961. The FAA has upheld the PIO's decision. The Commission finds no reason to disagree with the same, no further action is required in the instant case.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002367, the Commission is of the view that information as sought by the appellant has already been provided to him by the PIO, as per record and no further action is required in this case. The PIO cannot create information, as desired by the appellant. Information can only be provided from record.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001537, the appellant has sought copies of a few letters, which he alleges to have been issued by the Ministry, in response to which the Ministry and IWAI have informed that no such letters have been issued. The appellant has not been able to show proof of the letters' existence, therefore, no further action is required in this case. The PIO is cannot provide any information to the appellant which is non-existent. The PIO can only be called upon to supply information, in accordance with the available record, without conceding or withholding the same.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000742, the Commission is of the view that information sought by the appellant is, indeed, voluminous and related to different PIOs and yet the same has been provided by PIOs, Noida and Patna, and further clarified by the FAA. No further action is required in the instant case.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001535, the appellant sought information regarding action taken on his complaint dt. 01.01.2014 alleging the corrupt conduct on the part of Shri R.N. Bajpai. The PIO informed the appellant that the Competent Authority, after perusal of the allegations made, instructed that the appellant should refrain from making such allegations. Moreover, the appellant has furnished any proof in support of his allegations. The Commission does not find any reason to differ from the PIO/FAA's stance.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001400, the Commission finds that the appellant had filed three first appeals before the same FAA against the same RTI application. One was disposed of on 23.12.2013 and one on 20.03.2015, after receipt the Commission's notice of hearing. The contention raised by the appellant was regarding clarity of a document provided by the PIO, which the FAA clarified later on. The Commission does not find any reason to differ from the FAA's stance and is of the view that no further action is required in this case.Page 11 of 15
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001284, the Commission is of the view that information has been provided to the appellant and no further action is required in this case.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000821, the Commission concurs with the view taken by the respondent authority. The appellant has sought for an inquiry report in respect of Shri T.K. Biswas, names of dependents of Shri U.K. Sahai with proof, copy of appointment letter of Shri S. Ismail, list of Group 'C' employees who were not granted ACP/MACP along with reasons for the same etc. Information on some of these points is personal in nature, disclosure of which has no public interest. Information on other points would require to be collected and then, compiled by the respondent authority, so that the same can be provided to the appellant. The scope of information sought is vast and cannot be compiled without disproportionately diverting the resources of the resources of the respondent public authority.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000865, the appellant, in the instant case, has sought information regarding appointment letter, reservation rosters, total posts sanctioned in IWAI, rules regarding HRA, criteria/norms for granting of ACP/MACP, total posts lying vacant, details of foreign tours, its cost, details of postings of entire group, copied of DPC recommendations, qualification/experience of Director, seniority list, details of repairer of survey equipment, details of security contractors, etc. The sheer gamut of information sought by the appellant would indeed have been extremely time-consuming and expensive. The PIO, however, compiled, collated and has already provided the information. The appellant has requested the Commission to treat this case on merit. As transpired from the available record, even after receiving the information, the appellant is unsatisfied with the same and later on, has sought clarifications, which cannot be provided to him under the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission does not find any merit in this case and no further action is required.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000876 and F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000646, the Commission finds that that the demand for information made by the appellant is indiscriminate and impractical. Providing the same would not only be counter-productive but would also adversely affect the efficiency of the administration, resulting in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of simply collecting and furnishing information. The respondent authority has provided information as per record, despite the above. The appellant still remains unsatisfied. The Commission is of the view that no further action is required in this matter.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002616, the Commission finds that information could not be provided to the appellant within time as the FAA had not marked the order dt. 11.09.2014 to the PIO and that it was mentioned that the copies of bills/challans be provided to Engineer in Chief and not to the appellant. The FAA, being a quasi judicial body, should have made sure that the order is marked to the PIO and that it is complied with by the concerned PIO. The Commission, therefore, cautions the FAA to strictly follow the RTI regime while disposing of appeals.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000879, the Commission is of the view that the information is, indeed, voluminous. The appellant has denied to avail the opportunity of inspection provided by the respondent authority. The Commission, therefore, cannot compel the respondent authority to provide the same to the appellant as the same will result in disproportionate diversion of resources. The Commission finds no merit in the appellant's appeal and no further action is required in this case.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001285, information has been provided to the appellant and the Commission finds no mala fide on the part of respondent authority for concealment of information, as alleged by the appellant.
Page 12 of 15In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002614, the Commission is of the view that the information as per available record has been provided to the appellant and no further action is required.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002619, the appellant has chosen not to avail of the opportunity of inspection provided by the respondent authority, despite seeking voluminous information and the respondent authority cannot be compelled to provide copies of pages for a large mass of general information. No further action is required in this case.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001403, the Commission is of the view that information has been provided to the appellant and no further action is required to be taken.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001691 and F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000763, the Commission finds that information was provided to the appellant by both the Ministry and IWAI and no further action is required.
The Commission finds this case to be a classic instance of blatant misuse of RTI Act by relentlessly filing a series of RTI applications to harass the officials of a public authority, by a disgruntled employee of the same organisation. Moreover, the information sought in most of his RTI applications has no public interest at all. 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 personal in nature or relates to more than one PIO/dept. The appellant, motivated by personal interest, has clearly sought 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.
The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC
946) has termed fling 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. In this context, it would be pertinent to refer to the following observations of Pasayat J. in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11):
"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 oppressed 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 Page 13 of 15 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 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."
The appellant, in the above mentioned cases has filed RTI applications of varied nature, relating to all the divisions of IWAI. The nature of information sought can be enumerated as under :
1. Details of appointment, promotion, deputation, grant of ACP/MACP and pay fixation of officers, belonging to Groups A, B, C & D.
2. Information on ACR/APAR/court cases, vigilance cases.
3. Note-sheets w.r.t. transfer and posting of officers
4. Personal information of staff members including details of their dependence like date of birth, date of marriage etc.
5. Details regarding different contracts, work orders, agreements signed, release of payment, vouchers etc.
6. Queries of audit reports of CAG, internal audit report of Ministry of Shipping
7. Allocation of funds by ministry to IWAI and its utilization.
8. Claims like TA/DA/LTC/Children Education Allowances submitted by officials.
9. Personal information of contingent workers deployed on various vessels of IWAI
10. Agenda and minutes of the authority
11. Deployment of regular/contractual staff on vessels
12. Details of vehicles provided to officers, name and address of vendors along with details of tenders/contracts.
The disclosure of information of this amplitude will not only lead to diversion of resources in compiling the same but will also lead to unproductive man hours. The respondent authority cannot be compelled to furnish information on the appellant's whimsical and impractical demands analogous to reckless data mining on a humongous scale.
The Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. held, "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 Page 14 of 15 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."
According to the written submission filed by the respondent authority, the appellant has filed around 199 RTI applications since the year 2009 till date. The public authority has already spent inordinately large number of man hours in furnishing the information to the appellant, which in the process would have already impinged on the scarce resources of the organization. The Commission, therefore, is constrained to warn the appellant to be more careful in future, failing which the Commission will be compelled to dismiss his applications without hearing, on the grounds of being vexatious and repetitive and with an ulterior motivate. No further action is warranted, in the above mentioned cases, on the part of the respondent authorities.
The appeals and complaints 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.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Page 15 of 15