CENTRALINFORMATIONCOMMISSION

(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)

ReferredSections : Sections 3, 19(3) of the

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

3. The Appellant, in this case is a former employee of DTTDC who was

compulsorily retired after several allegations were proved against him. The

document dt.4.5.09 addressed to the Honble Lt. Governor of Delhi produced

beforetheCommissioncontainsthelongcasehistoryoftheAppellantwhichrun

into fifteen pages explains various charges against him and penalty imposed

againsthimunderdifferentcircumstancesbasedonenquiryconducted.

4.TheRespondentofficerssubmittedthatAppellanthasaskedasmanyassixty

eightquestions. Hisquestionsmostlypertaintotheletterssubmittedbyhimto

different offices like the LG of Delhi, Chief Secretarys office, Directorate of

vigilance, Directorate of Anti Corruption Branch and for action taken report on

theseletters.

5.TheRespondentauthorityalsosubmittedthattheyhavegiveninformationtoan

earlier RTI application in pursuance to CIC order dt.21.10.10 after facilitating

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.

7. The PIO is directed to provide information against Q.No.58 which talks

aboutthepolicyofdeclaringanemployeeassurplus.

8. The Commission observes that this is yet another case of repeated

questions being filed by a dismissed employee which Respondent feels is

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

applications run into hundreds of questions similar to those posed by lawyers

duringcrossexaminationorappearlikeaparallelenquiryagainsttheauthorities

who might have ordered disciplinary action against them. The respondents

submittedtheywerereadytocomplywiththeRTIActbutansweringenquirytype

questions and repeated RTI applications would involve diversion of resources,

energybesidesdemoralizingthem.TheCommissionappreciatesthegenuineness

oftheproblemandsincerefeelingsoftherespondentofficersandfindsaneedto

addressthisseriousissue.ItistheresponsibilityofInformationCommissionsand

GovernmentofIndiatoseethattheRTIActwillnotbecometherendezvousfor

disgruntledelements.

PositiveimpactofRTI

10.However,theCommissionalsotakesthisopportunitytoremindthatbecause

of RTI questions a positive sense of accountability had been introduced and

certainsystemsofdisciplineandanswerabilityarebeingputinplaceinseveral

departments.Thedisarraysituationoffilesandrecordskeepingischangingand

systematic keeping of records is being initiated. If abuse or repetitive use is

curtailed, the RTI will empower the citizen and makes public authorities more

accountableanddemocracywillbedrivenbyinformedcitizenry.
PlacingRTIabusersinformationinpublicdomain

11. To address the problem of harassing repeated question, the Commission

recommendstherespondentauthoritytoanalyzealltheRTIapplicationsfiledby

such appellants, compile all the questions contained therein and indicate the

informationprovidedagainstthemanduploadthesameinthewebsiteaspartof

voluntarydisclosure,aftersendingacopytotheappellantsandtheCommission.

That consolidated information along with a background note based on facts,

avoiding unfounded allegations should also be placed. The Commission also

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

on the performance of their duties. The information in website also serve as

answerstoRTIquestionifrepeatedagain,towhichthereferenceorweblinkcould

begiven.Thesamemaybereportedintheircounterstofirstandsecondappeals.

UK,SouthAfrica,Mexicorefusevexatiousrequests
13.TheUnitedKingdomsFreedomofInformationAct,2000whichbecamefully

effectiveinJanuary2005providedanexceptiontoRighttoInformationonthe

groundsofvexatiousorrepeatedrequestsasageneralexceptionunderSection

14. Requests for information intended to be published are also excluded.

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

information was furnished or refused as decided by the wisdom of authorities.

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

litigating, because it is review and an opportunity to challenge the order on

reasonable and legal grounds. Filing same or slightly modified application for

information which was decided, is against the principles of natural justice

pertainingtoprocedure.

15. TheCivilJusticeprinciplesalsorecognizedconstructiveresjudicatawhich

means when an applicant availed opportunity of obtaining information on a

particular subject, he is expected to seek all the related information in that

opportunityitself.Hecannotfileanotherapplicationforabitorpiecewhichhe

forgottoask,ornotadvisedbyhislawyertoask,orthoughtheshouldpostponeit

forotherpurposes.Heshouldaskallpossibleaspectsofinformationaboutthat

subjectmatter,onceandforall.Ifhedoesnot,itisassumedthatheaskedforthat

and was refused properly. This is incorporated in principles of civil procedural

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

Central Information Commission is flooded with such repeated questions from

thousandsanglesbyonepersonrunningintohundredsofRTIapplications.Asthe

PIOswentonanswering,moreandmorequestionsaregeneratedoutofthesame

and in the same proportion the number of repeated first appeals and second

appealsalsoaregrowing.

ICMMAnsarisobservations

17. In Prem Prakash Kumar v NFL, Panipat,(Decisionno.246/IC/(A)/2006,

F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00374&375dated28August2006)theappellantsought

documents and specific comments of CPIO on 89 queries. The Learned

CommissionerShriMMAnsariobservedthatinfact,thenatureofqueriesandthe

informationsoughtaresuchthattheinformationseekerwouldneverbesatisfied

becausethepromotionofselfinterest,ratherthanpublicinterest,wasdominant,

astheappellanthadsoughtredressalofgrievances.

ANTiwarisobservations

18. In Shri Gopal Soni v The New India Assurance Company Ltd (F No

CIC/AT/A2008/00097, 000116, 000124, dated 12.6.2008) Learned Commissioner

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.

CIC/AT/A/2007/00112, the Learned Central Information Commissioner Sri A N

Tiwariobserved:itwouldmeanthatoncecertaininformationisplacedinpublic

domainaccessibletothecitizenseitherfreelyoronpaymentofapredetermined

price,thatinformationcannotbesaidtobeheldorunderthecontrolofthepublic

authorityandthuswouldceasetobeaninformationaccessibleundertheRTI

Act.

20.Emphasisisthatoncetheinformationisaccessibleoravailable,norequests

forthesameshallbeentertained.Inalimitedextentitavoidsrepetition.Thiscan

beextendedfurthertosayonceapplicantprocuredtheinformationsought,the

informationisnomoreheldbypublicauthorityorunderitscontrolasfarasthat

applicantisconcerned,andthusthepublicauthorityneednotanswer.
ShaileshGandhisobservations

21.ItisrelevantheretoquoteaparagraphfromtheorderofLearnedInformation

Commissioner Sri Shailesh Gandhi in case numbers. Dated.in a second

appeal between. : The Commission, at several appellate hearings, has

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

recognizes the fact that valuable time of the complainant, respondentpublic

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

of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and referred to by the

Commission in its 2000 resolution on freedom of expression. They were also

endorsed by Mr. Santiago Canton, the Organization of American States (OAS)

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

itself helpless with regard to penalizing them. However the Commission

believesthatitcanrecordthefactofabuseofRTIAct,2005andnotifythe

admonition, direct/recommend applicants not to resort to abuse anymore

and direct/recommend public authorities to refuse them. If any applicant

resortstothreesuchrepeatedRTIapplications,theCommissionmayeven
recommendblockingofsuchabuseanddirectthepublicauthoritynotto

entertainthesameapplicantanymore,whichhasagaintobenotified.
WasteofpublictimeandobstructingRTI

28.Alltheabovediscussioncanbeconsolidatedintotworeasons:

(i) Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the

valuabletimeofthepublicauthority,firstappellateauthorityandifitalso

reachessecondappeal,thatoftheCommission,whichtimewouldhavebeen

spenttohearanotherappealoransweranotherapplicationorperformother

publicduty.

(ii) Every repetition of RTI application is an obstruction of flow of

informationanddefeatsthepurposeoftheRTIAct.

CitizenhasnoRighttoRepeat

29.FortheabovereasonsandbasedonobjectiveoftheRTIAct,itsprovisions,

whichshouldbereadtogether,andaboveordersbythelearnedCommissioners,

thisCommissionobserves:

a) Thecitizendonothavearighttorepeatthesameorsimilarorslightly

alteredinformationwhichhealreadygot,(thecombinedreadingofvarious

provisionsofRTIAct,alongwiththestatementofobjectivesoftheAct)

b) Once an RTI application is answered, the appellants shall refrain

themselvesfromfilinganotherRTIapplicationagainstthepublicauthority

as once information is received and held by them or posted in public

domain, the applicants are not supposed to seek it again under RTI

applications.

Repetitionshallbegroundofrefusal
 c) SuchrepetitionshallbeconsideredasgroundofrefusalundertheRTIAct.

d) Anapplicant or appellant repeating theRTI application or appeal either

onceorfilesmultipleapplications,incertaincaseshundredsofqueries,

suppressingthefactofearlierapplicationandreceiptoftheanswer,the

CPIOofpublicauthorityshallexplainsuchfactsandintimatetheapplicant,

andrejectitforthwith,givingsuchreason.

Appealscanberejected

e) TheFirstAppellateAuthorityshallberightiftheyrejectfirstappealonthis

groundandtheCommissionalsowouldonlybejustifiedinrejectingsuch

appeal.

30. TheCommissionorderedaccordingly.

Sd/

(M.SridharAcharyulu)
InformationCommissioner

Authenticatedtruecopy

(AshwaniK.Sharma)
DesignatedOfficer