Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (1.95 seconds)

Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011

2. We   have   considered   the   submissions   of   both   the   parties   and   note   that   the  Complainant   has   filed   a   large   number   of   RTI   applications   concerning   information   in  respect of a retail outlet of the Respondents and the matter was considered at length in  our   order   No.   CIC/LS/C/2012/000887/SH,   CIC/LS/A/2012/001424/SH,  CIC/SH/C/2014/000035,   CIC/SH/C/2014/000073   and   CIC/SH/A/2014/000319   dated  19.12.2014.  In the above order, we made, inter alia, the following observations:­ "In   this   context,   we   note   that   the   Respondents   have   provided   copies   of   various  documents more than once and also offered explanation in response to the queries of  the Appellant / Complainant more than once.  Many of the questions relate to events  that are fifty years old and the CPIO cannot be expected to produce information that  does not exist on the records of the public authority.  We see no ground to conclude  that there has been deliberate denial of information or fabrication of documents by the  Respondents.  The Appellant / Complainant, who is very old, has been represented in  most of the cases by Shri G. L. N. Prasad.   She and her representatives ought to  CIC/SH/C/2015/000003 realise that whatever claim, that she believes she has to the land in question, has to  be established in a court of law.  Continued filing of a large number of RTI application,  even after the Respondents have provided a good deal of information, adds to the  work of the public authority to respond to the same, without adding any further value to  the   information   that   the   Appellant   /   Complainant   has   already   been   provided   in  response to her repeated RTI queries.     We would like to recall to the Appellant /  Complainant the full observation of the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 9.8.2011  in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.,  which was briefly referred to in paragraph 5 of our interim order dated 2.7.2014:­ "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   counter­productive   as   it   will   adversely   affect   the   efficiency   of   the   administration   and   result   in   the   executive   getting   bogged   down   with   the   non­ CIC/SH/C/2015/000003 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  public  authorities  prioritising   'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 8906 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1