Complainant had property disputes & filed over 25 RTI applications - Respondent: Complainant tried physical assault on the FAA, for which a Police complaint was lodged - CIC: prepare a comprehensive note on the misuse of RTI & put it on official website
1. Complainant is not present. Public authority is represented by Shri Subhash Chand, PIO (HQ), R. K. Anand, APIO, Gulshan Kumar, Insp(Vig) and Nari Singh, Insp(Admn).
2. Complainant through his RTI application sought for copy of all process notes in respect of file mentioned in his application, Deptts not to the law department, copy of his letter to chief secretary etc. Claiming non-furnishing of information within the prescribed period, the Complainant has approached the Commission in Complaint U/S 18 of RTI Act.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
3. Respondent officer submitted that the complainant had filed more than 25 RTI applications in the department. From submissions, it appears that he has property disputes against his nephew Ramesh Arya, and he filed several RTI applications about it. He further stated that information asked by the complainant is not retained for more than one year, and hence they cannot provide the same. Officer stated that the complainant had filed complaint against all officers before the MHA to pressurise the department for lodging FIR against his nephew.
4. Respondent officer also stated that during the hearing before the First Appellant Authority on 22.01.2015 Mr. L. D. Chopra misbehaved with FAA and indulged in unnecessary arguments. He abused and tried physical assault on the FAA, for which a compliant was lodged against him in the local Police Station. He was also given last opportunity to inspect the file within a week but he failed to do so.
5. The Commission finds it is a case of misuse of RTI by complainant. The Commission directs the respondent authority to prepare a comprehensive note on the misuse of RTI by this complainant and put it on the official website along with this order, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission rejects the second appeal.
Citation: L. D. Chopra v. Deptt. Of Food and Supply in Case No. CIC/SA/C/2015/000010