• Appeal –Section 19(3) of the RTI Act:
The Appellant through an RTI application dated 19-12-2012 sought certain information regarding a notification dated 15-09-2011 by which Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, public authority had invited the applications for dealership within the range of 2 kilometer of Bhaniyawala NH 72. The application made included queries such as how many applications have been received for the dealership; to provide name, address and telephone numbers of applicants; when was the site inspection conducted; to provide the name, strength and designation of the officers who were part of the Inspection Committee, to provide a copy of Inspection report and so on.
The CPIO furnished the information sought but the appellant was dissatisfied with the information supplied to him by the CPIO.
In the appeal before the CIC, the appellant not only requested that the full information sought be provided to him but also sought some additional information like, yardstick being followed for giving dealership in respect of highways; a copy of objection raised by the Site Inspection Committee in respect of yardstick etc.
During the hearing, the Respondents pointed out that the Appellant in his present appeal before the Commission has sought additional information which he had not sought in his original RTI application. At that stage, he is not allowed to seek information other than sought in his RTI application.
The Commission ruled:
“The Commission agrees with the Respondents that the information now sought by the Appellant in the present appeal did not form part of his original RTI application. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to allow the disclosure of the information which had not even been sought by the appellant in his RTI application. An information seeker cannot be allowed to expand the scope of his RTI enquiry at appeal stage. No disclosure can, therefore, be directed to be made in the present appeal of the Appellant. The Appellant, however, may file a fresh RTI application, if he so desires.”
[Harish Prasad Divedi vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Appeal No CIC/LS/A/2013/001477-SS decided on 28-01-2014: (RTIR I (2014)132(CIC)]
• Section 7(9) of the RTI Act:
Section 7(9) of the Right to Information Act reads as under:
7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.
In the writ petition, the petitioner sought expeditious disposal of petitioner’s appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as well as a direction to respondents to pay amount of ` 3,01,000/- as compensation. Petitioner had also prayed for a direction to take disciplinary action against respondent No.1.
The petitioner had sought the information under 23 different items. The petitioner stated that he is a financier who gives advances to various contactors working with Director General, Deference estates.
The Court held:
“Keeping in view the width and amplitude of the information sought by the petitioner, it is apparent that the prayers in the writ petition are nothing short of an abuse of process of law and motivated if not an attempt to intimidate the respondent.”
“In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates and Cantonment Board would come to stand still.” The court then reproduced the relevant Paragraph, from the Supreme Court decision in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, [(2011) 8 SCC 497].
Then it quoted para 39 of the Supreme Court decision in ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya, [(2011) 8 SCC 781], as under:
39. “We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling u/s. 4(1) (b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.”
Consequently, the Court deemed it appropriate to refuse to exercise its Writ Jurisdiction, and the petition was dismissed. This Court was also of the view that “misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this sunshine Act. A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.”
[Shail Sahni vs.Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. W.P. (C) 845/2014 decided by the High Court of Delhi on 05-02-2014. (RTIR I (2014) 220 (Delhi)]
