CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus,New Delhi Tel: /

Transcription

1 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus,New Delhi Tel / File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/001185/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/001186/SD Date of hearing 23/06/2016 Date of Decision 29/06/2016 Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal Appellant Harbans Singh Jaswal Pocket E, 138 C, IInd floor Near Hans Raj Smark Sr. Sec. School Dilshad Garden Delhi Respondent (i) Addl. General Manager(TORQUE) & CPIO Bharat Electronics Ltd. Outer Ring Road, Nagavara Bangalore (ii) Sr. General Manager (HR & Admn.) & CPIO Bharat Electronics Limited P.O. Bharat Nagar Ghaziabad (UP) RTI application filed on 05/03/ /12/2013 PIO replied on No reply First appeal filed on 24/04/2014 First Appellate Authority order No order 1

2 Second Appeal dated 12/07/2014 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER SHRI DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA Information sought CIC/CC/A/2014/001185/SD The Appellant sought various information related to Compassionate appointments in BEL. CIC/CC/A/2014/001186/SD The Appellant sought information related to educational qualification of the following Staff of BEL, Ghaziabad (a) Sakshi Srivastav (b) Chandan Shiv TV (c) Sambit Kumar Sahu (c) Stephen Lezely Hembrome. Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing The following were present Appellant Present in person and assisted by Ms Neelam Bala Jaswal. Respondents (i) B.V. Ramayya, DGM(Legal) & CPIO, BEL, Bangalore present through VC. (ii) Prakalpa Sharma, Deputy Manager (Legal & Admn) & CPIO, BEL, Ghaziabad present in person. Appellant used unparliamentary and intemperate language during his submission in a raised voice and did not maintain the decorum of the Court. He also alleged that the Commission has passed unfair orders in respect of his five RTI appeals on 03/06/2016. CPIO, Bangalore submitted that he had transferred the RTI application to CPIO, Ghaziabad who provided information to the appellant on CPIO, Ghaziabad submitted that he has provided the information to the appellant on

3 Both CPIOs submitted that the appellant is an ex employee of BEL and is in the habit of harassing the public authority by filing numerous RTIs on subjects like educational qualification of officials and other related matters. Appellant has used the RTI Act for seeking information in respect of public officials which is otherwise personal in nature for personal vendetta. DECISION CIC/CC/A/2014/001185/SD & CIC/CC/A/2014/001186/SD Commission observes that the second appeals submitted by the appellant is to get information related to compassionate appointments in BEL and educational qualifications of employees of BEL. The appellant wants to challenge the recruitment of selected staff members of BEL. Appellant feels that their educational qualification is not recognised by concerned Govt. Institutions. Both appeals are dismissed. Observations of Commission Commission had disposed of five appeals of the appellant on The appellant has been using the route of RTI to harass the public authority. The Commission further observes that the appellant who is a retired employee of BEL had sought information not for any public interest or to bring any transparency in the system but for settling personal scores with officials of his earlier Organisation. Commission cannot allow any appellant to make insinuating, defamatory and unparliamentary remarks against the Commission. Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.4930 has observed clearly the provisions of the RTI Act would not be available to a disgruntled employee seeking information as regards public officials which is otherwise personal in nature on account of furtherance of a personal vendetta. The Hon ble Madras High Court in its decision dated 18 th Feb 2013(W.P No to 3778 of 2013 P. Jayasankar vs Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu) has held as under 5. the Commission recorded that the petitioner was abusing the process of law and his only intention is to make complaints against the Commission and he continues to make insinuating or defamatory remarks against the Commission. Therefore, the Commission passed an order that the Commission 3

4 should not receive any order from the petitioner concerned. This is the subject matter of the second Writ Petition. 13. Lastly, as regards the question as to whether the particular information seeker can be disqualified or blacklisted from sending further representation having regard to the conduct of the concerned person, certainly if a person abuses the process of law and also insinuating the Commission, then the Chief Information Commissioner can be appointed only as a person of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance It is clear that the authorities concerned, particularly the Information Commission, possess the essential attributes and trappings of a court. Its powers and functions, as defined under the Act of 2005 also sufficiently indicate that it has adjudicatory powers quite akin to the court system. They adjudicate matters of serious consequences. The Commission may be called upon to decide how far the right to information is affected where information sought for is denied or whether the information asked for is "exempted" or impinges upon the "right to privacy" or where it falls in the "no go area" of applicability of the Act. It is not mandatory for the authorities to allow all requests for information in a routine manner. The Act of 2005 imposes an obligation upon the authorities to examine such matter seriously being fully cautions of its consequences and effects on the right of others. In view of the above finding, henceforth, no information seeker can be allowed to insinuate or defame the Commissioners in the guise of prosecuting their cases. In light of the above judgments, Commission is of the view that the appellant has disregarded the chair of the Information Commissioner and has openly alleged that Commission gave unfair orders in respect of his earlier appeals. Commission observes that appellant is of the habit of abusing the RTI Act He has made a number of RTI queries and preferred as many as 148 RTI applications in Ghaziabad unit and 155 applications in Bangalore unit of BEL. Out of the total RTI applications, 39 relate to information on a single individual official Diler Singh Kuhar. He is taking the 4

5 route of RTI for harassing public authority and also pursuing personal vendetta. In view of the foregoing, the Commission warns the appellant to take a careful note of the above observations. Furthermore he is cautioned for misusing the provisions of the RTI Act. Conduct of such appellants result in public losing faith and confidence in this Sunshine Act. A beneficial statute when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. Authenticated true copy (Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner (Raghubir Singh) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 5