Misrepresentation of facts regarding RTI reply before the CIC

Background

The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act seeking information about the numbers of Deisel and Electrical Assistants with only diploma as technical qualifications. The case was decided by the Central Information Commissioner (CIC) wherein the Commission directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) to furnish a reply to the appellant within 1 week. It was also directed that in case the PIO had already sent a reply to the appellant, he should once again furnish a copy of his reply indicating the details of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). On not receiving a reply from the PIO, the appellant filed a petition with the CIC complaining that the respondents have failed to furnish the desired information to him. He also enclosed a copy of communication of the PIO by which it was informed to the appellant that he has been seeking same information again and again and that the public authority has been responding to him every time. The letter also contained the dates of the request from the appellant and the dates of the PIO’s replies.

Proceeding

During the hearing before the CIC, the appellant informed the Commission that not a single reply has been received from the Public Authority. In order to help the appellant to identify the 5 to 8 replies (as mentioned in the letter enclosed by the appellant along with the petition) sent by the Member Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board (RRB)  reply, the Commission asked the appellant to show his file which he had brought with him for the Commission’s hearing. The appellant reluctantly produced his file before the Commission for its perusal. The Commission on perusing the whole file of the appellant found various replies which the appellant was earlier denying. The Commission then questioned the appellant as to why he was suppressing the facts from the Commission and thereby making an attempt to mislead the Commission. The appellant instead of answering the Commission’s question stood up from his seat and stated that “he does not want to be heard”; “the hearing is over”. He also stated that the Commission has no right to examine his file and that he wants to leave with his file. The Commission advised the appellant to take his seat and make his submission calmly. However, the appellant refused to listen to the Commission and walked out.

View of CIC

The Central Information Commissioner (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the appellant himself is not interested in pursuing the present matter.

Comments

Misrepresentation of facts amounts to misuse of the law and should not be resorted to by the applicants.

Citation: Mr. Jaiveer v. Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) in File No. CIC/AD/C/2012/00834