Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mrmanish Aggarwal vs Gnctd on 3 June, 2015

                                                             

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



                    Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)

                                           Information Commissioner


                                             CIC/SA/A/2015/000109



                Manish Aggarwal vs. Dte of Education (East), GNCTD

                                           Important Dates and time taken:




   RTI:2­4­14/2­5­14(30)                 FA:6­5­14/9­6­14(34)                      Hearing:28.5.2015

   SA: 19­8­2014                         Abuse of RTI                              Decision: 03­06­2015




Parties Present: 


        The appellant is not present.  The Public Authority is represented by Dr.K.K.Madan. 




  FACTS: 

2.  Appellant sought for action taken report on his letter dt 6.2.2014, certified copy of official  noting, reply received from DAVPS, details of complaints, name of complainant, date of  complaint   and   action   taken   on   complaints   since   October   2013.       PIO   enclosed   the  information on point no 1,2,3 & 5.   Unsatisfied with the PIO reply, appellant made first  appeal.   FAA directed the PIO to provide information within 7 days.  On non compliance of  FAA order, appellant approached the Commission.

CIC/SA/A/2015/000109                                    Page 1
   DECISION


  3.     The appellant is not present.     The Public Authority made their submissions.   The 

respondent   officer   submitted   that   the   appellant   has   been   furnished   with   the   relevant  information.  The appellant is fighting against the DAV Public School, which is one of the  best   schools  in  Delhi,   on  the  ground  of   encroachment   of   DDA  land.     The  respondent  authority   have   already   made   correspondence   with   the   DDA,   which   has   asked   the  Department to indicate the alternative arrangements made to the students of the school  who will be disturbed due to demolition of the school encroachment.  The department had  replied   to   the   DDA   that   they   can   give   admission   to   the   disturbed   students   in   the  Government school near to the DAV Public School.   In the meanwhile, the DAV Public  School had gone to the High Court and obtained the stay order against the demolition  move.     The appellant has also  lodged  a complaint against  the  DDE,  Ms. Saroj  Bala,  seeking her prosecution,  and the same was disposed of by the Court. 

4.   The respondent authority further submitted that the appellant, who is operating along  with some group, is continuously filing complaints against the school and the Education  Department by way of notice under 80 CPC, followed by the petitions in courts of law.  They also developed a practice of filing RTI applications seeking information, action taken  on the complaints, etc.  The respondent authority suspects that the appellant is associated  with   a   group   who   are   engaged   in   extortion   of   money   from   the   schools,   if   they   have  committed any irregularity.  Ultimately, their complaints/petitions reach upto the High Court,  as   the   group   is   headed   by   an   Advocate   who   is   practicing   in   the   High   Court.     The  respondent officers also submitted that they are being harassed and frustrated because  they have been compelled to divert all their attention to the appellant's RTI applications,  petitions etc. thereby depriving them from  performing their regular duties. They requested  the   Commission   to  curb   the   misuse   of   RTI,   harassment   of   education   department   and  extortion attempts by some anti­social elements.  

CIC/SA/A/2015/000109 Page 2

5.   Having heard the submissions and perused the record, the Commission admonishes  the appellant for misuse of RTI Act and cautions him not to harm the larger interests of  students who are studying in the said DAV Public School, by raising frivolous complaints  and RTI applications.  The Commission, also directs the respondent authority to prepare a  comprehensive note on the RTI applications, first and second appeals by the appellant and  his   group and the resultant action and upload that note in the official web site of the  Education   department,   mark   a   copy   to   the   appellant   and   use   that   note   to   reject   the  repetitive RTI applications referring to that note including the police report.  This direction  shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.   The appeal  is disposed of accordingly. 

(M Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy  (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Address of parties

1. The CPIO under the RTI Act, Govt. of Delhi Directorate of Education, RTI Branch, East District D­Block, Anand Vihar, Delhi­110092

2. Shri Manish Aggarwal A­102, F.F.  Yojna Vihar Delhi­110092 CIC/SA/A/2015/000109 Page 3 CIC/SA/A/2015/000109 Page 4