Applicant filed 92 RTIs applications and appeals - Regarding the issue of filing multiple RTI applications, the CIC referred to the SC decision CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors - CIC: Furnish the certified copy of Enquiry Report to the Appellant

O R D E R

RTI – 1 File No. CIC/MH&FW/A/2018/119405-BJ

FACTS:

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 12 points regarding copy of report by the Enquiry Committee constituted by the ICSSR/MHRD, Govt. of India dated 13.07.2016, which was made available to CRRID by the ICSSR, along with the covering letter of the ICSSR; copies of replies/comments on the said enquiry report submitted by CRRID to the ICSSR; details of the individual on whose directions these replies / comments were submitted and other issues related thereto.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 22.11.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. However, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 25.12.2017 while referring to the Appeal of the Appellant dated 23.11.2017, again forwarded the requisite information to the Appellant as per the direction of the First Appellate Authority.

RTI – 2 File No. CIC/MH&FW/A/2018/120186-BJ

FACTS:

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding whether the competent authority / official of CRRID had submitted the compliance report as per the comments and recommendations of the Enquiry Report which was made available by the ICSSR to the Director, CRRID on 04.10.2017 for the said purpose, if yes, the date of submission of the compliance report and the mode by which it was submitted to the ICSSR and other issues related thereto. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 28.12.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 01.03.2018, upheld the CPIO’s response.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Dr. Himal Chand along with Mr. Satnam Singh (Adv.) through VC;

Respondent: Mr. Meenal K. Barua, CPIO and Mr. Sanjay Gupta, FAA through VC;

The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and stated that the information sought had been wrongly and malafidely denied by the Respondent Public Authority. Narrating the background of the case, the Appellant submitted that he had specifically sought for the copy of Enquiry Report conducted on the directions of CVC by the ICSSR against the alleged irregularities in CRRID. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the response of the CPIO/FAA. In addition, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant was dismissed from service in the year 2009/2010 and that the information sought by him had already been furnished by ICSSR. Furthermore, it was informed that at the time of filing of the RTI application, Enquiry Report had not submitted to the parent Organization i.e. ICSSR and therefore, the same was denied under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission was informed that the Appellant had filed a petition in the District Court, Chandigarh. The Appellant contested the above averments of the Respondent and further submitted that the certified copy of the Enquiry Report had not been provided to him. The Respondent however agreed to furnish the certified copy of the Enquiry Report forthwith. The Respondent Further relied on its written submission.

The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 25.09.2019/28.09.2019/04.20.2019 wherein while alleging that the CPIO/FAA had erred in providing the desired information, he inter-alia prayed to the Commission to take appropriate action against the erring Respondent and ensure the implementation of the RTI Act at CRRID in letter and spirit as also to provide the correct and complete information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

The Commission was also in receipt of an e-mail from the Respondent dated 30.09.2019 wherein it was submitted that the CRRID is a registered Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, working on national and international issues, with its limited resources. Furthermore, it was submitted that CRRID is getting 45 per cent grant-in-aid from the ICSSR, New Delhi and rest of resources contributed by the funds from the State Government of Punjab on matching basis and projects.

It was further submitted that the Applicant had filed his 1^st RTI on 20^th March, 2009 and that the CRRID had provided information containing 3418 pages to the Appellant. The CRRID had diverted all its possible human resource to collate, compile and supply the information to the Appellant. Moreover, the Public Authority had received 92 RTI Applications from the Applicant and each RTI containing 15 to 20 question and almost same number of appeals, which have been appropriately dealt with from time to time as per the provisions of the Act. Furthermore, it was informed that he had filed 15 Complaints, to the office of the Chief Information Commission (CIC), out of 15, the 9 Complaints were dismissed by the Commission and in six cases partial information was provided to him, as per the Order of the Commission. Furthermore, it was informed that he had also sought similar information from different Public Authorities such as ICSSR, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India; Department of Planning, Government of Punjab; ISID, New Delhi and PGIMER, Chandigarh. It was further submitted that CRRID has all respect for the Right to Information Act 2005 and accordingly supplied the best possible information available with it with its limited resources and within the time frame and will continue to do so in future also. Since 2009, had the Applicant sent nearly 92 RTIs, same numbers of appeals, as a PIO they have to deal with all the RTIs in which he is alleging and questioning the PIO and making his own observations and opinion. The Commission was therefore prayed to advise the applicant to desist from using the RTI Act in a manner that would amount to harassment of public authorities without fulfilling the basic objective of the Act.

The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:

“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.”

Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:

“(j) right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes    ”

In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:

35...... “It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:

6. “....Under the RTI Act “information” is defined under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; which provides:

“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.”

This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed.”

7. “....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the “public authority” under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him.”

Regarding the issue of filing multiple RTI applications, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:

"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-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.

A reference to the earlier decisions of the Commission was also made by the Respondent in a similar subject-matter in File No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000595 dated 20.07.2010; CIC/LS/A/2013/000940+CIC/LS/A/2013/000939 dated 26.06.2013; CIC/YA/A/2014/000408+CIC/YA/A/2014/000410 dated 28.04.2015; CIC/SS/C/2013/000169 dated 28 October, 2013; CIC/RM/A/2013/000499 dated 09.10.2013; CIC/RM/A/2013/000651 dated 28.10.2013, etc. 

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish the certified copy of Enquiry Report to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, as agreed. For any further redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.

The Appeals stand disposed accordingly

(Bimal Julka)

(Information Commissioner)

Citation:  Dr. Himal Chand v. Centre for Research in Rural & Industrial Development in Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/MH&FW/A/2018/119405-BJ+ CIC/MH&FW/A/2018/120186-BJ, Date of Decisio:11.10.2019