Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 November, 2003
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):
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
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
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
Page 5 of 7
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."
The appellant has filed a number of RTI applications regarding the same issue of his
promotion, fixing of senior scale of pay and grant of selection grade before the respondent
public authority. The public authority has already spent inordinately large number of man hours
in furnishing the reply/information to the appellant, which in the process would have already
impinged on the scarce resources of the organization. Also, the appellant has been raising
similar issues before the Commission, since the year 2008 and the same have been heard and
decided, time and again. However, the appellant has been, relentlessly, filing RTI applications,
first and second appeals thereon, for his personal gain, which is adversely affecting the
efficiency of the administration and resulting in the public authority getting bogged down with
the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information, for redressing the grievance
of the appellant.
1