Central Information Commission
Kamal Kishore Arora vs Ministry Of Commerce & Industry on 17 December, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/MOCMI/A/2019/117578
In the matter of:
Kamal Kishore Arora
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion,
IPR Section, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi 110001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 19/11/2018 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 07/01/2019 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 12/04/2019 Date of Hearing : 14/12/2020 Date of Decision : 14/12/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC alongwith his son and representative, Shri Gaurav Arora Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ranjan, Under Secretary & representative of the CPIO, Ministry of Commerce, present and Industry and Ms. Sandhya Kothari, Assistant Controller & CPIO, CGPCTDM, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the detailed particulars of the entire action taken against Sh.
Birendra Jaiswal, Examiner of Trade Marks, Dwarka, New Delhi and Sh Shakti Dhar Ojha, Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai in pursuance to representations/complaints/e-mails dated 18/06/2018 and 03/09/2018 addressed to Sh. Ramesh Abhishek, Secretary, Dept of 1 Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi.
2. Provide the detailed particulars comprising of the concerned show cause notices, if any issued by the Ministry to the said officials to provide the detailed comments upon the representation/complaints/e-mails dated 18/06/2018 and 03/09/2018 and also respective replies/comments.
3. Provide the detailed particulars of valid reasons of delay in not taking any action despite lapse of considerable period of three months.
4. Provide the detailed particulars of all the other steps taken for the purposes of redressal of grievances.
5. Provide the detailed particulars of the up-dated status of the representations/complaints/e-mails dated 18/06/2018 and 03/09/2018.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide any information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the CPIO has provided wrong, incomplete & false information and documents to him. He submitted that in view of the principles of natural justice, especially in view of the Disciplinary-Manual, it was not proper on the part of the respondent authority to place the complaint before Mr.Shakti Dhar Ojha when the complaint was against him only. Besides, the CPIO has deliberately replied in a very vague & evasive manner, to protect the blameworthy official, considering it as the Departmental Asset, when not only various complaints have been lodged against him, rather a criminal case/FIR has been lodged and the Police Charge-Sheet thereto has been issued by the Mumbai Police against him for his illegal & immoral acts.
In his written submissions, he had stated that neither the information about the corruption cases nor the complaints filed against the public servant can be held to be covered under any exemption as 'personal information', when the CPIO has not claimed anything likewise in his reply to the above mentioned RTI Application. In support of his submissions, he has relied on various judgments passed by the Commission and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The representative of the CPIO, Ministry of Commerce appeared late for the hearing as informed by him that there was a traffic jam at various places in Delhi due to the ongoing Kisan Andolan Rallies. Since this was intimated by the representative of the CPIO before the hearing started, he was informed that his submissions will be recorded once he reaches the Commission. In his submissions, he stated that since the matter was related to the office of the Controller General, Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, the RTI application was 2 transferred to them on 20.12.2018 for furnishing the requite information to the appellant. The first appeal was also forwarded to office of the Controller General, Patents, Designs and Trade Marks on 11.02.2019.
The CPIO, Ms Sandhya Kothari, CPIO, CGPTDM submitted that the above mentioned RTI application was received by them on 24.12.2019 and thereafter a suitable reply was given to the appellant by the then CPIO on 25.03.2019.She stated that the then CPIO in his reply had cited the reason for the inadvertent delay caused in giving a reply to the appellant. She informed the Commission that she is not the custodian of the information and the information as was made available by its custodian in the form of two emails dated 20/08/2018 an 29.08.2018 with regard to the disposal of the complaint dated 18.06.2018 was supplied to the appellant. With regard to the contention of the appellant that his complaint was disposed of by the same person against whom it was filed is not correct as the complaint dated 18.06.2018 was against Shri Bijender Jaiswal which was disposed of by Shri S D Ojha. With regard to the complaint date 03.09.2018 against Shri S D Ojha, the concerned officer, Shri Satyendra Kumar Pandey, Joint Registrar of Trade Marks & G.I had informed that no such information is available as per the office records.
Observations:
At the outset, it is important to quote verbatim the information sought by the appellant in one of his RTI applications dated 20.08.2018 dealt with in File No. CIC/CGPDT/A/2019/100133 which was heard and decided by the Commission on 19.05.2020:
a) present/updated status of our aforesaid representation dated 18.06.2018( a copy whereof is filed herein, duly marked as Annexure A-1) followed by subsequent e-mails dated 28.06.2018 & 17.08.2018.
b) detailed particulars of the entire disciplinary action as having so far been taken against the above named Examiner in pursuance to our aforesaid representation dated 18.06.2018.
c) detailed particulars of the suitable steps as having so far been taken against the above-named Examiner, for the purposes of redressal of our grievances as enumerated in our aforesaid representation dated 18.06.2018.
d) detailed particulars of nay memo or show cause notice etc, as having so far been issued requiring him to explain his attitude as shown by him while discharging his duties as Examiner of Trade Marks and as specifically pointed out so vide our aforesaid representations dated 18.06.2018
e) Other related information 3 In another RTI application dated 12.10.2018 which was heard and decided by the Commission on 19.05.2020 in File No. CIC/CGPDT/A/2019/105232, the appellant had sought the following information:
1. Academic and Technical qualifications of Sh. Shakti Dhar Ojha alongwith details about the year of passing of all the examinations and names of the concerned colleges/institutes/universities, etc.
2. Copy of the advertisement issued for the post of Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, i.e. the post to which Sh. Shakti Dhar Ojha was initially appointed in the office of the Trade Marks Registry.
3. Copy of application form submitted by Mr. Ojha for the post of Assistant Registrar in the office of the Trade Marks Registry.
4. And other related information.
In another RTI application dated 19.06.2018 which was heard and decided by the Commission on 19.05.2020 in File No. CIC/MOCMI/A/2018/160203, the appellant had sought the following information:
1. Academic and Technical qualifications of Mr. Birendra Jaiswal, Examiner of Trade Marks.
2. Copy of the advertisement in response to which Mr. Jaiswal was initially appointed.
3. Copy of application form submitted by Mr. Birendra Jaiswal for the initial appointment in the office of the Trade Marks Registry.
4. Names, designations and qualifications of all the members of the Committee or any other authority recommending initial appointment of Mr. Birendra Jaiswal.
5. And other related information.
The purpose behind quoting the contents of the various RTI applications filed by the appellant verbatim is to establish the fact that these RTI applications are very similar in nature seeking information either about Mr. Birendra Jaiswal or about Mr. Shakti Dhar Ojha. It is also noted that the first four points in the present RTI application were already covered in File No. CIC/CGPDT/A/2019/100133.
Although the Commission in its earlier orders has considered the fact that the appellant may have noticed certain irregularities in the working of the organisation as a whole and thus has taken the route of the RTI to bring some reforms in the organisation, however, after looking at the non-stop trail of RTI applications filed by the appellant, it appears that he has misconceived the role of the Central Information Commission. The CIC is an adjudicating body to give 4 relief only in such cases where it is found that the relevant information is not provided to the applicant. However, in the present cases, the CPIO and the FAA cannot be expected to satisfy the appellant, when the appellant is not in search of information but only to raise allegations against the two officers named above by filing multiple, repetitive RTI applications followed by appeals and complaints. All the appeals are inter-related in some manner or the other and are clearly indicative of absolute misuse of the provisions of the RTI Act.
During the hearing, an adequate opportunity was given to the representative of the appellant to point out the deficiency in the reply of the CPIO so as to ascertain as to whether there is was any requirement of giving direction to the CPIO to provide a revised reply to the appellant. However, to the utter surprise of the Commission, the representative of the appellant who is also a learned Advocate by profession submitted that there is no provision under the RTI Act whereby the Commission can direct the CPIO to give a revised reply. It is brought to the notice of both the appellant and his representative that if such was the case, then the purpose of establishing the Commission as a Second Appellate Authority gets defeated. For better understanding of the appellant and his representative, both may take note of Section 19(8)(a)(i) of the RTI Act which is reproduced below:
"In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to,--
(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including--
(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;"
From the above what can be gathered is that the CIC is well within its power to direct the CPIO to give a revised reply, wherever the Commission is satisfied that the same will serve the purpose of filing the RTI application. The appellant should know that the RTI Act is a means to promote public interest and should not to be used as an instrument to harass the public authority and sort grievances for which other fora exist. His multiple RTI applications have a grave impact on the functioning of the respondent organization, and if this is allowed, the public authority cannot focus on their core duties and their entire time will be devoted to such repeated/multiple RTI questions as can be seen that for every hearing, the concerned officers have to 5 leave their core and important work and be present for the hearings. He cannot use the RTI route by flooding the public authority with numerous RTIs on the same or similar issues.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission without commenting on the merits of appeal deems it appropriate to dismiss the appeal and orders no relief in the matter.
The appellant is also cautioned to refrain from filing such RTI applications henceforth. In case any such repeated second appeals or complaints are filed before the Commission, the same shall be dismissed in limine.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
6