O R D E R

1. The complainant filed 58 applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi, seeking information on various points. The details of information sought by the complainant in all 58 RTI applications and the reply given by the CPIO in each of those applications is enumerated in Annexure-‘A’ as enclosed along with this order.

2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the respondent, the complainant filed 58 complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Hearing:

3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The then CPIO, Shri Dalip Singh attended the hearing through audio-call. The present CPIO, Ms. Jessie Jacob attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The written submissions of the parties are taken on record.

5. The Commission observed that the complainant had filed large number of RTI applications/complaints/second appeals before the Public Authority/Commission and after analyzing certain cases, it was observed that the then CPIO Shri Dalip Singh has given cyclostyle reply in large number of cases. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Commission has agreed to hear and adjudicate those similar cases where identical replies were given by Shri Dalip Singh, the then CPIO in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The complainant and the respondent have also agreed for the same.

6. The complainant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his all above RTI applications. The complainant, during the hearing, has argued in each case separately (as mentioned above). The complainant contended that the respondent with malafide intention has obstructed the information under the RTI Act. The complainant further submitted that the respondent in response to his RTI applications has given cyclostyle response and not applied his mind in giving reply/information. The complainant submitted that he has sought specific information in each of his RTI applications but vague reply was given by the then CPIO on all his RTI applications. The complainant further submitted that the there is a delay in giving reply/information on the part of the then CPIO on all his RTI applications. The complainant further contended that the then CPIO has also not sought assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act in order to obtain information from the concerned department/section/CPIO. That CPIO intentionally did not provide documentary information relating to functioning of his Supervisor Officer/FAA to avoid embarrassment to him and obstructed information with malafide. The complainant further raised his contention that the then CPIO never give point-wise reply/information to him on his RTI applications. The complainant further submitted that till date no reply was received by him from the respondent public authority in file nos. CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/656159, CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/650533. The complainant further submitted that he has received reply along with the written submissions of the respondent in file no. CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/650512. The complainant further submitted that the then CPIO has wrongly transferred his RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the SPMCIL in file no. CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/656158 and till date no information has been received by him from the concerned CPIO. The complainant further submitted that the then CPIO in almost each file has stated that the details of deemed CPIO is available on their website, which is wrong.

7. Regarding conduct of FAA, he further stated that the FAA has also not disposed of his first appeals within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act. That the FAA has given decisions where information sought is related to him and his poor conduct which is in sheer violation of principal of natural just