Data sought is old, voluminous and scattered over numerous files; Appellant was advised to visit NSTFDC office for inspection - CIC: Appellant is advised to exercise his right to information responsibly and refrain from filing multiple RTI applications

Information Sought:

The Appellant has sought the following information:

1. Provide copy of Promotion Roster as also of Direct Recruitment Roster submitted to DPC, duly signed by Liaison officer, Shri .M.K. Brahma, for cognizance of DPC for the meetings held in 2019 for promotions to the post of Assistant Manager (now Deputy Manager).

2. Provide copy of Direct Recruitment Roster signed by Ex-Liaison officer/ Sh. Anil PC Raven, submitted to CMD/ Competent authority for approval for issue of advertisements of various posts since 2012 till date.

3. Provide copy of Direct Promotion Roster signed by Ex-Liaison officer, Sh. Anil PC Raven, submitted to DPC with the approval of Competent Authority for taking cognizance by DPC for grant of promotions at all levels from the year 2012 till date.

4. And other related information (in total 32 points).

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that he was not given any information.

The CPIO reiterated the written submissions dated 14.09.2022.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 03.06.2021 replied that data sought by the appellant is old, voluminous and scattered over numerous files and would require compilation which is beyond the purview of RTI Act, 2005 as per Section 7(9). lt would also disproportionately divert the resources of the Company. However, in the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005, the appellant was advised to visit NSTFDC office to inspect the documents/information sought by the appellant under the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA vide order dated 18.07.2021 further held that it appears that almost all of the information sought by the appellant relates to the Personnel Department. The appellant being an employee of NSTFDC could have requested for such information from the Head Personnel Department. However, the appellant has chosen to seek information under the provisions of the RTI Act. The appellant may be aware that in December 2019 and on and few other occasions in the past, the Supreme Court had flagged the issue of misuse of the RTI Act 2005. From review of the aforesaid appeal, it appears that the information sought is old, voluminous and scattered over several files. Despite this, the appellant was provided with photocopies of various records. Being the employee of the same company, the appellant is well aware of the fact that compiling old and voluminous information unnecessarily diverts the limited resources of the corporation which otherwise may be used for constructive things. Further, due to the prevailing pandemic situation because of COVlD, the operational efficiencies are highly constrained with priority for key tasks.

From a review of the aforesaid appeals, it appears that in some cases personal information of other individuals has been sought by the appellant. Being personal and third party information having no larger public interest, the FAA opined that the appellant could have avoided seeking such information about his own colleagues as the same are exempt under section 8(1) g and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA has been given to understand that the appellant was given an offer of physical inspection by the CPIO. However, the offer was not availed of by the appellant which reflects that he is not serious about obtaining the information.

The CPIO vide written submissions dated 14.09.2022 submitted that the appellant is a repeated RTI information seeker and is not availing inspection despite the offer and approaches CIC. The appellant being from the same city was asked why he had not availed of inspection and also not considered the fact that he is seeking huge information on 32 points, to which he submitted that irrelevant information was given. He also stated that he was transferred in retaliation to his applications. However, he failed to provide any justifiable reason for not availing inspection rather he stated that the officers have created a hostile environment.

Decision:

In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no ground to intervene. The appellant is advised to exercise his right to information responsibly and refrain from filing multiple RTI applications seeking voluminous information which puts a strain on the public authority.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Pradip Kumar Singh v. National Scheduled Tribes Finance and Development Corporation in CIC/NSTFD/A/2021/142416, Date of Decision: 19/09/2022