Respondent: Appellant was caught red handed taking a bribe & the case is under trial; he has filed over 50 RTI applications - CIC admonished the Appellant for running a parallel enquiry & asked to place the RTI replies on the Department website
Heard on 10.12.14. Appellant was present at NIC Studio, Chandigarh and was heard through phone. Respondent was represented by Shri Manoj Kumar Rai.
2. The appellant has filled RTI application for seeking information with regard to a letter send to him by Sh Surendar Kumar for following the procedure in case of factual mistake in draft of letter or approval letter viz whether procedure provided is legal or illegal; whether it is legal that a file sign by Shri S.K Sehrawat modified by Sri Ishwar Singh. On not receiving any reply from the CPIO, the appellant made first appeal on 18.3.2014.Claiming not furnishing of information from the respondent, the appellant made second appeal before the Commission.
3. The Appellant states that one of the sentences written by the PIO is not correct. What he wants is such written statements should not be made by the Respondent. The Respondent says that there is nothing wrong in the statement. The Respondent submitted that Appellant was caught red handed taking bribe and the Appellant agreed that the case is under trial and he has filed more than fifty RTI applications in his name and in his wife’s name and that he is exercising his right. The Respondent submitted a detailed note regarding the RTI applications, first appeals, Public Grievances submitted by the Appellant and his wife. Several files have to be opened to respond to his RTI application. He also stated that it results in harassing the officers and has a demoralizing effect in fighting corrupt practices.
4. The Commission directs the PIO to place the RTI applications and replies furnished in the Department website. The Commission admonishes the Appellant for running a parallel enquiry with the sole purpose of harassing officers who are pursuing cases against him. The Commission holds that there is no public interest behind his RTI application and he is trying to take private vengeance against the department for he was caught red handed. The Commission also warns him not to misuse RTI and instead pursue all remedies he has as per law in that case.
5. The appeal is dismissed.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Bishnu Kant Thakur v. M/o Environment & Forests in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/000509