Uday Mahurkar, Information Commissioner

FACTS

1. The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-

2. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply from the PIO, the Appellant, approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 08.02.2023, directed the PIO to provide the point - wise reply to the appellant within 10 days.

3. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant:

The appellant attended the hearing through AC.

Respondent: The respondent Shri R.P. Gupta, EE (Bldg.) attended the hearing in person.

4. The appellant's 59 cases were scheduled for hearing on 13.10.2023, at 10:15 AM, at the Central Information Commission (CIC). The hearing notices had been duly delivered to the appellant on 04.10.2023 (as per the Indian Post website). However, the appellant informed via telephone that he was unable to present his case due to an urgent matter scheduled at the Hon'ble Tis Hazari Courts. Subsequently, the appellant's son visited the CIC in person, informing that his father was occupied at the Hon'ble Tis Hazari Courts, although he lacked the hearing notice or any proof related to the hearing in the Hon'ble Court. Despite this, the appellant was granted a telephonic hearing (audio conference) upon the request of the appellant and his son.

5. The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that partial, false, and misleading information was furnished to him by the CPIO. The appellant further alleged that the respondents had a recurring pattern of not responding to RTI applications and failing to comply with the Commission's orders. He expressed concern over illegal constructions in his locality, which were making the streets narrower and balconies of these structures to extend into the main roads and streets. He also raised issues about the safety hazards posed by some of these illegal constructions, noting that they could potentially collapse. He emphasized that he sought this information in the broader public interest due to the safety implications. Additionally, the appellant-accused the respondents of failing to sanction the maps for these constructions, alleging corruption and a lack of site inspections. He expressed dissatisfaction with the responses provided by the respondent authority.

6. The respondent was present during the hearing in person and contended that they had indeed replied to the appellant's RTI application. The respondent further informed that the RTIs filed by the appellant requested voluminous data and involved third-party information that they were not authorized to disclose, as it could potentially be misused. The respondent also pointed out that the appellant had filed 125 RTIs in around one year and frequently submitted multiple similar RTIs.

DECISION:

7. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide the broader outcome of the appellant's complaints and letters, free of charge, in accordance with the principles of transparency and accountability as defined in the RTI Act, 2005. This should be done within 21 days from the date of receiving this order, with notification to the Commission.

8. Furthermore, the Commission advises the appellant not to submit similar RTIs or information requests without a genuine public interest before the respondent and Second Appeal in the Commission. Such actions are viewed as a waste of taxpayer money, time, and government resources.

9. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.