A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

CIC: 20 Second Appeal cases of the Appellant against the same Public Authorities had already been disposed of by CIC while 9 are listed; Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional

CIC: FAA’s order set aside holding that the directions for disclosure of information were passed without application of mind; Personal details including educational qualification of other candidates is held by UPSC in as fiduciary, exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

Respondent: From where 'Ajit Newspaper' got the said documentary evidence is not on record; While the PIO was providing the information, RTI applicant repeated communications - CIC: It casts immense pressure on CPIOs to provide the correct deduction

Enquiry findings in relation to the complaints were denied u/s 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) - CIC: PIO should have redacted the personal information of other third-party officers by invoking Section 10; Provide broad updated outcome of Appellant’s complaint

Information about PMO such as Anti-corruption unit in the PMΟ, generic mail ID, complaints of corruption against Public Servants, SOP followed for PMs photographs, speeches, interviews and bio-data etc. - CIC: Appropriate information has been provided

Information about pay scale PGT teachers working with Universal Public School - Appellant: Documents provided to him are not attested or certified by the PIO - CIC: Respondent to provide certified copies of relevant information free of charge to Appellant

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Degree of an individual is personal and does not warrant disclosure under the RTI Act

Inordinate delay in the hearing and disposal of second appeals

Information Commissioner abdicated the statutory responsibility and acted as an agent of the government

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

CIC: 20 Second Appeal cases of the Appellant against the same Public Authorities had already been disposed of by CIC while 9 are listed; Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional

7 Oct, 2025

CIC: 20 Second Appeal cases of the Appellant against the same Public Authorities had already been disposed of by CIC while 9 are listed for today; Applicant is seeking all and sundry information causing harassment to the public authority; Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional; Advised to make judicious and sensible use of RTI in future

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 11.07.2024 seeking the following information:

“1) दिनांक 27/12/2023 को प्रदूषण का स्तर बढ़ने के कारण तोड़-फोड़ और रिपेयरिंग/मरम्मत के कार्य पर दिल्ली सरकार ने रोक लगाई थी क्या ?
यदि हाँ, तो कृपया उसके आदेश/निर्देश/दिशानिर्देश की फोटो कॉपी उपलब्ध कराई जाए।”

Loosely translated

“1) On 27/12/2023, was a ban imposed by the Delhi Government on demolition and repair/maintenance works due to rising pollution levels?
If yes, then kindly provide a photocopy of the order/instructions/guidelines regarding the same.”

2. The PIO/ Dy. Secretary (RTI) furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.07.2024 stating as under:

“Since the requested information also pertains or held by PIO, Environment Dept., GNCTD and PIO, Delhi Pollution Control Committee office, the instant application is hereby transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for providing information directly to the applicant under intimation to this office. In case it does not fall under your jurisdiction it may please be further transferred to the Public Authority to which the subject matter is more closely connected directly under intimation to the applicant.”

3. The PIO/ J.S (Env) furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.07.2024 stating as under:

“With reference to your applications dated 16.07.2024 received transferred from Chief Minister Office in this office on 18.07.2024. The requisite information has been received from the concerned officer is enclosed for further action.”

4. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 14.08.2024, held as under.

“The PIO (Env) states that the applicant was provided the requisite information vide this office letter dated 24.07.2024 and will once again provide the full response as received from the technical wing.

Decision: Heard the matter. The PIO is directed to provide the full information as received from the technical wing of the Environment Department to applicant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.”

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present in person.

Respondent: Shri Vikrant Mahawal, APIO-cum-SO and Shri Anjan Kumar, Senior Assistant, attended the hearing in person.

6. The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application.

7. The Respondent submitted that a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Appellant within stipulate time frame as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

8. He further apprised the Bench of the fact that the Appellant is a habitual RTI Applicant and this Commission has already heard and decided several cases of the Appellant involving similar issues.

Decision:

9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable and pointwise reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given by the Respondent within stipulated timeframe as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.

10. The RTI Act does not provide for furnishing progressive updates and/or periodic replies in the matter once the PIO has provided a response within 30 days intimating the action taken as it stood in record on the day of replying to the RTI Application.

11. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from the perusal of records that 20 Second Appeal cases of the Appellant against the same Public Authorities had already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. It is also worth noting that a total number of 9 Second Appeal cases are listed for today’s hearing. It was also opined that by way of filling these many RTI Applications seeking all and sundry information, the Appellant is causing harassment to the public authority as well as wasting the time and resources of the Commission. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The approach of the Appellant is against the spirit of the RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. The Respondent has pleaded for remedy against repeated and humongous number of RTI applications and Appeals by the same person. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022, wherein it was held as under and leave it to the respondent to choose a remedy.

“…It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner’s ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide. The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022.”

12. In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Harender Singh v. Department of Environment, File No: CIC/DPOEV/A/2024/132098; Date of Decision : 26.08.2025

CIC: 20 Second Appeal cases of the Appellant against the same Public Authorities had already been disposed of by CIC while 9 are listed; Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.