Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
(RoomNo.315,BWing,AugustKrantiBhawan,BhikajiCamaPlace,NewDelhi110066)
CIC/AD/A/2013/001046SA
Appellant : PradeepS.Ahluwalia
Respondent : DelhiTourism&Transportation
DevelopmentCorporation
Dateofhearing : 5.6.2014
Dateofdecision : 20.6.2014
InformationCommissioner : Prof.M.SridharAcharyulu
(MadabhushiSridhar)
Result : Appealallowed/
disposedof
Observation : AcaseofabuseofRTI
FACTS
Heardon5.6.14.Appellantnotpresent.PublicAuthorityisrepresentedby
ShriSusheelSaxena.
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dt.23.8.12 with the PIO, DTTDC
seekinginformationagainstsixtyeightpoints. NotsatisfiedwiththePIOsreply
(Copynotenclosed),theAppellantfiledanappealdt.10.10.12withtheAppellate
Authority.TheAppellateAuthorityvideorderdt.14.11.12directedthePIOtoprovide
allavailableinformationwithintwentyworkingdays.Onnotreceivinganyreply,the
Applicantfiledasecondappealdt.12.3.13beforeCIC.
Decision
compulsorily retired after several allegations were proved against him. The
beforetheCommissioncontainsthelongcasehistoryoftheAppellantwhichrun
into fifteen pages explains various charges against him and penalty imposed
againsthimunderdifferentcircumstancesbasedonenquiryconducted.
4.TheRespondentofficerssubmittedthatAppellanthasaskedasmanyassixty
eightquestions. Hisquestionsmostlypertaintotheletterssubmittedbyhimto
vigilance, Directorate of Anti Corruption Branch and for action taken report on
theseletters.
5.TheRespondentauthorityalsosubmittedthattheyhavegiveninformationtoan
inspection,whichmostlyrelatestopointsoughtinthepresentcasealso. The
Appellanthasalsoacknowledgedreceiptofdocumentsreceivedafterinspection.
Outofhissixtyeightquestions,seventeenpertaintohisletterswrittentodifferent
departmentswhichwereclaimedtohavebeenforwardedtorespondentauthority.
TheRespondentsubmittedthattheydonotknowexactlywhatletterwasforwarded
tothem.Soitisdifficultforthemtotracetheletter.Thirtyninequestionspertainto
theactiontakenreportontheletterswrittenbyhimtoCMDofDTTDC.Q.No.57
seekstoknowthereasonsforissuanceofaparticularletter.Q.No.57to67deals
withactiontakenagainsthim.
6. TheRespondentsubmittedthatallthesequestionsweresubjectmatterof
enquiry which was conducted according to rules and based on which he was
compulsorilyretired. TheRespondentauthoritysubmittedthatthereweresix
enquiryreportsandallofthemwereprovidedtotheAppellantandtheAppellant
haschallengedoneamongthem.
aboutthepolicyofdeclaringanemployeeassurplus.
continuousharassment. TheRespondentpleadedbeforetheCommissionthat
whentheAppellanthaschallengedthedecisiontakenbasedonenquiryreport,
whyshouldofficebesubjectedtorepeatedRTIapplicationsonthesubjectmatter.
RTI:Notarendezvousofdisgruntledelements
9. The Commission noticed three or four former employees in every public
authority,whowereeithersuspendedorremovedorfacingcharges,convictedina
crimeorfacingdisciplinaryactiontryingtorunacounterinquirieswithharassing
questions. TheCommissionalsonotedanatmosphereoffearandworrywas
spreadintheofficesandofficersstartedhesitatingtotakeactionagainsterring
staffmembersforfearoffacingfloodofquestionsunderRTI.Sometimes,theRTI
duringcrossexaminationorappearlikeaparallelenquiryagainsttheauthorities
who might have ordered disciplinary action against them. The respondents
submittedtheywerereadytocomplywiththeRTIActbutansweringenquirytype
energybesidesdemoralizingthem.TheCommissionappreciatesthegenuineness
oftheproblemandsincerefeelingsoftherespondentofficersandfindsaneedto
addressthisseriousissue.ItistheresponsibilityofInformationCommissionsand
GovernmentofIndiatoseethattheRTIActwillnotbecometherendezvousfor
disgruntledelements.
PositiveimpactofRTI
10.However,theCommissionalsotakesthisopportunitytoremindthatbecause
certainsystemsofdisciplineandanswerabilityarebeingputinplaceinseveral
departments.Thedisarraysituationoffilesandrecordskeepingischangingand
curtailed, the RTI will empower the citizen and makes public authorities more
accountableanddemocracywillbedrivenbyinformedcitizenry.
PlacingRTIabusersinformationinpublicdomain
recommendstherespondentauthoritytoanalyzealltheRTIapplicationsfiledby
such appellants, compile all the questions contained therein and indicate the
informationprovidedagainstthemanduploadthesameinthewebsiteaspartof
voluntarydisclosure,aftersendingacopytotheappellantsandtheCommission.
recommendsexhibitingtheinformationintheirnoticeboardattheentranceorany
conspicuousplaceintheiroffice,takingaphotographofsuchanotificationand
postingitonthewebsite.
12.TheentireinformationabouttherepeatedRTIquestionsbyappellants(such
as,Mr.RCJain,Mr.JaiKumarJain,Mr.SatDevSharmaandMr.SurajPrakash
Bakshi,etc.ascomplainedbytherespondentauthorityinthiscase), andthe
documentsgivenbythePublicauthority,theprivateinterestoftheappellants,lack
ofpublicinterestinthesaidRTIapplications,etc.alsoshouldbekeptinthepublic
domain,sothatpeopledonotresorttofilerepeatedvexatiousRTIapplications,
cloggingthepublicauthorityanddeprivingthemoftheirvaluabletimetobespent
answerstoRTIquestionifrepeatedagain,towhichthereferenceorweblinkcould
begiven.Thesamemaybereportedintheircounterstofirstandsecondappeals.
UK,SouthAfrica,Mexicorefusevexatiousrequests
13.TheUnitedKingdomsFreedomofInformationAct,2000whichbecamefully
effectiveinJanuary2005providedanexceptiontoRighttoInformationonthe
groundsofvexatiousorrepeatedrequestsasageneralexceptionunderSection
Informationwhichisalreadyreasonablyaccessibletotheapplicanteventhough
thisinvolvespaymentoperatesasabsoluteexceptionunderSection21ofFreedom
ofInformationAct,2000ofUK.InMexicotheaccesstoinformationlawprovides
groundsofoffensiverequestsorrequestswhichhavealreadybeendealtwithfor
refusing the information. South Africa also provided for refusing information
requestswhicharefrivolousorvexatious.RenownedAuthorSudhirNaib,inhis
bookTheRighttoInformationinIndia,publishedbyOxfordUniversityPress2013
supportedtheserestrictionssaying: Thisappearstobeinorderasvexatious,
offensiveorrepeatedrequestscanimposeacostlyburdenonpublicauthorities
andyetnotadvancetherighttoinformation(atpage28).
Resjudicata=alreadydecided
14.TheCommissionnoticedthatsomeoftheapplicantsarefilingphotocopiesof
RTIrequestswiththesamepublicauthoritiestimeandagainseekinginformation,
irrespectiveofthefactthatpreviousapplicationreachedsecondappealleveland
WhennottakentoHighCourtforjudicialreview,thematterassumesfinalityand
cannotbesoughtforagainfromthePIO.ThoughRighttoInformationAct,2005
didnothaveanyspecificprovisiontobartherepetitionforinformationlikeSection
11ofCodeofCivilProcedure,theuniversalprincipleofciviljusticeresjudicata
willcertainlyapplyandtherepeatedrequesthastoberejectedwithanemphasis.
TwoLatinmaximsformthebasisofthisrule,theyare:interestrepublicaeutsit
finislitium (=itisintheinterestoftheStatethatthereshouldbeanendto
litigation)andnemodevetvisvexariprounaeteademcause(=nomanshouldbe
taxedtwiceoverforthesamecause).IfthePIOs,FirstAppellateAuthoritiesand
the Commissions allow repeated RTI applications, there will be no end to the
informationlitigationandthepublicauthoritieswouldbecontinuouslytaxedforno
faultofthem.Appealasprovidedbylawisallowed,thoughitappearslikere
reasonable and legal grounds. Filing same or slightly modified application for
pertainingtoprocedure.
15. TheCivilJusticeprinciplesalsorecognizedconstructiveresjudicatawhich
opportunityitself.Hecannotfileanotherapplicationforabitorpiecewhichhe
forgottoask,ornotadvisedbyhislawyertoask,orthoughtheshouldpostponeit
forotherpurposes.Heshouldaskallpossibleaspectsofinformationaboutthat
subjectmatter,onceandforall.Ifhedoesnot,itisassumedthatheaskedforthat
justice and practiced universally. It is in the public interest and also to further
objectivesofRighttoInformationAct,thatsuchrepeatedorunendingstreamof
questionsbeingsoughtfromsameordifferentpublicauthoritiestobestopped.
16.TheCommissionnoticedthatseveralapplicantsseeksomeinformationfrom
one wing of the public authority, and based on the information received, file a
bunchofRTIquestionsfromthesameorotherwingsofsamepublicauthority,or
fromotherauthorityandtheharassmentcontinueswithoutanend.EventhePIOof
thousandsanglesbyonepersonrunningintohundredsofRTIapplications.Asthe
PIOswentonanswering,moreandmorequestionsaregeneratedoutofthesame
and in the same proportion the number of repeated first appeals and second
appealsalsoaregrowing.
ICMMAnsarisobservations
F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00374&375dated28August2006)theappellantsought
CommissionerShriMMAnsariobservedthatinfact,thenatureofqueriesandthe
informationsoughtaresuchthattheinformationseekerwouldneverbesatisfied
becausethepromotionofselfinterest,ratherthanpublicinterest,wasdominant,
astheappellanthadsoughtredressalofgrievances.
ANTiwarisobservations
18. In Shri Gopal Soni v The New India Assurance Company Ltd (F No
ShriA.N.Tiwardealtwithsimilarproblem.Therespondentsabovesubmittedthat
theappellant,theiremployee,wassuspendedforinsubordinationandmisconduct,
andeversincehedirectedaspateofapplicationscontainingqueriesfordetailed,
voluminousbutinaneinformationwhichwouldhavetobecollectedandcollated
fromover30branches.TheCommissionheldinthiscase:answeringtheelaborate
and detailed queries, which have to be both accurate and authentic, imposes
heavycostonthepublicauthorityandtendstodivertitsresources,whichbringsit
withinthescopeofsection7(9)ofRTIAct.
19.InShK.LallvShMKBagri,AssistantRegistrarofCompanies&CPIO,FNo.
Tiwariobserved:itwouldmeanthatoncecertaininformationisplacedinpublic
domainaccessibletothecitizenseitherfreelyoronpaymentofapredetermined
price,thatinformationcannotbesaidtobeheldorunderthecontrolofthepublic
authorityandthuswouldceasetobeaninformationaccessibleundertheRTI
Act.
20.Emphasisisthatoncetheinformationisaccessibleoravailable,norequests
forthesameshallbeentertained.Inalimitedextentitavoidsrepetition.Thiscan
beextendedfurthertosayonceapplicantprocuredtheinformationsought,the
informationisnomoreheldbypublicauthorityorunderitscontrolasfarasthat
applicantisconcerned,andthusthepublicauthorityneednotanswer.
ShaileshGandhisobservations
21.ItisrelevantheretoquoteaparagraphfromtheorderofLearnedInformation
explained to the complainant that under RTI Act, only the information as per
recordscanbemadeavailable;multipleRTIapplicationsandappealswouldnot
provide him any information beyond the records that exists. The Commission
authorityaswellastheCommissionisbeingspentinmerelygoingthroughthe
motionsprescribedundertheRTIActagainandagaintoobtainsimilarinformation.
.AtthisjuncturetheCommissionwouldliketomentionthatthoughtherightto
informationisafundamentalrightofthecitizens,itcannotbeusedindiscriminately
tofulfillthedemandsofoneindividual.Inthepresentmatter,itmustbenotedthat
theComplainantispursuingmultiplelitigationandvariouspublicauthoritiesare
beingaskedtodivertanextraordinarilydisproportionateamountofresourcesjust
torespondtohundredsofRTIapplicationsfiledbyhim.TheCommissionisalso
consciousofthefactthatitisfinancedbythepoorestmaninthiscountrywhomay
bestarvingtodeath.ThecomplainantbyrepeatedlyfilingsimilarRTIapplications
andappealswiththerespondentpublicauthorityandtheCommissioniswasting
publicresources.
22. In the above case the Commissioner Sri Shailesh Gandhi observed that
appellantwasusingRTIActasalitigationtool,hisuseofRTIwasvexatiousin
nature,andheldthatentertainingsuchappealcouldnolongerservetheobjectives
oftheRTIActandatonegotheCommissionerhaddisposedoffallthepending
appeals.
NoscopeforrepeatingunderRTIAct
23.ThoughRTIAct,didnotspecificallyprovidethisasagroundofrefusingthe
information,itisimpliedfromthevariousprovisionsofRTIAct,thatanycitizenhas
righttoinformationonlyonceandnotrepeatedly.
PrinciplesofFreedomofInformationLegislation
24. InternationalstandardserieshavedevelopedthePrinciplesofFreedomof
InformationLegislationunderthetitlePublicsRighttoKnow,bytheArticle19
Organization.ThesePrincipleswereendorsedbyMr.AbidHussain,theUNSpecial
RapporteuronFreedomofOpinionandExpression,inhisreporttothe2000session
SpecialRapporteuronFreedomofExpressioninhis1999Report,VolumeIIIofthe
ReportoftheInterAmericanCommissiononHumanRightstotheOAS.
Under Principle 4 Limited scope for exceptions this document explained that
exceptionsshouldbeclearlyandnarrowlydrawnandsubjecttostrictharmand
publicinteresttests.Explainingtheharmtest,itstatedthatthepublicbodymust
alsoshowthatthedisclosureoftheinformationwouldcausesubstantialharmto
thatlegitimateaim.
(https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chromeinstant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF8#q=The
%20Public%E2%80%99s%20Right
%20to%20Know%3A%20Principles%20of%20Freedom%20of%20Information
%20Legislation)
25. Casesofdisclosureofinformationtotherepetitiveapplicantsfortheir
private purpose which promotes their private interest but not the public
interest,wouldcausesubstantialharmtothelegitimateaimoftheRightto
InformationAct.
26.Onceinformationisgiven,applicantshallnotseekthesameonceagain.
If the applicant seeks information again and again, the PIO, the First
AppellateAuthorityandtheCommissionwouldbeforcedtospendtheirtime
onthisrepeatedapplication,andintheprocesstheauthoritieswouldlose
that much time toaddress the other RTI applications or performing their
generaldutiesintheirpublicoffice.RepeatedRTIapplicationamountsto
cloggingtheofficeofpublicauthorityandCPIOwouldberightinrefusing
thesamewithintimation.BecausetheRepeatedRTIapplicationhasaneffect
ofcloggingthepublicoffices,itwouldamounttoobstructingthefreeflowof
informationtodeservingandgenuineRTIapplicants,besidespreventingthe
officersfromperformingtheirgeneraldutiesattachedtotheiroffice.
CommissionshallrecordABUSE,admonishABUSER
27. AsthereisnoprovisioninRTIAct,2005topenalizetheapplicantfor
abusinghisrighttoinformationorcloggingpublicoffice,Commissionfinds
believesthatitcanrecordthefactofabuseofRTIAct,2005andnotifythe
resortstothreesuchrepeatedRTIapplications,theCommissionmayeven
recommendblockingofsuchabuseanddirectthepublicauthoritynotto
entertainthesameapplicantanymore,whichhasagaintobenotified.
WasteofpublictimeandobstructingRTI
28.Alltheabovediscussioncanbeconsolidatedintotworeasons:
valuabletimeofthepublicauthority,firstappellateauthorityandifitalso
reachessecondappeal,thatoftheCommission,whichtimewouldhavebeen
spenttohearanotherappealoransweranotherapplicationorperformother
publicduty.
informationanddefeatsthepurposeoftheRTIAct.
CitizenhasnoRighttoRepeat
29.FortheabovereasonsandbasedonobjectiveoftheRTIAct,itsprovisions,
whichshouldbereadtogether,andaboveordersbythelearnedCommissioners,
thisCommissionobserves:
a) Thecitizendonothavearighttorepeatthesameorsimilarorslightly
alteredinformationwhichhealreadygot,(thecombinedreadingofvarious
provisionsofRTIAct,alongwiththestatementofobjectivesoftheAct)
themselvesfromfilinganotherRTIapplicationagainstthepublicauthority
domain, the applicants are not supposed to seek it again under RTI
applications.
Repetitionshallbegroundofrefusal
c) SuchrepetitionshallbeconsideredasgroundofrefusalundertheRTIAct.
onceorfilesmultipleapplications,incertaincaseshundredsofqueries,
suppressingthefactofearlierapplicationandreceiptoftheanswer,the
CPIOofpublicauthorityshallexplainsuchfactsandintimatetheapplicant,
andrejectitforthwith,givingsuchreason.
Appealscanberejected
e) TheFirstAppellateAuthorityshallberightiftheyrejectfirstappealonthis
groundandtheCommissionalsowouldonlybejustifiedinrejectingsuch
appeal.
30. TheCommissionorderedaccordingly.
Sd/
(M.SridharAcharyulu)
InformationCommissioner
Authenticatedtruecopy
(AshwaniK.Sharma)
DesignatedOfficer