केन्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गगं नाथ माग,ग मनु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NPCOI/A/2024/618867.

Shri. Vijay Dhaker. … अपीलकताग/Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Nuclear Power Corporation of India.

Date of Hearing : 03.02.2025 Date of Decision : 03.02.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 04.02.2024 PIO replied on : 01.03.2024 First Appeal filed on : 13.03.2024 First Appellate Order on : 19.04.2024 2^ndAppeal/complaint received on : 07.05.2024 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.02.2024 seeking information on following points:-

“As per Section-22 of The Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressall Act- 2013, the employer shall Intimate sexual harassment cases in the organization to the District Officer annually Provide me copy of that annual report or intimation submitted by the employer (NPCIL-HQ and RR Site) to the respective District Officer for the calendar year 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and

2023.

POSH Act-2013 and rules thereunder are available in public domain.”

The CPIO, Addl. Chief Engineer, NPCIL, Mumbai vide letter dated

01.03.2024 replied as under:-

“In this regard, it is informed by deemed PIO, that the report is being asked in RTI contains personal information, hence, it is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005, under fiduciary capacity with NPCIL and personal &

third party information. Hence, the same cannot be furnished.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 19.04.2024 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.

Respondent: Ms. Shradha Gupta, CPIO, Mr. Vinod Tidke, Sr. Manager, Ms. Varsha Bhagat, Company Secretary- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.

The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought.

The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished to the Appellant within stipulated time frame. They averred that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Application and due to the multiple, indiscriminate and repetitive filing of frivolous RTI applications by the Appellant, the officials of the respondent public authority are bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information instead of focusing on their core duties, leading to huge wastage of time and resources of public authority. They requested the Commission to declare the Appellant as a vexatious and frivolous RTI applicant.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished appropriate response in consonance with terms of the provisions of the Act.

It is noteworthy from the records of the case that the information sought by the Appellant has no public interest at all. It is motivated by personal interest and the information has been clearly sought with the vengeful motive to harass the officers through an overwhelming number of RTI applications. This Commission as well as the various Courts of law have repeatedly held that the RTI Act, meant for welfare of citizens, cannot be allowed to be misused or abused and to become a tool of oppression or for intimidation of officials striving to do their duty. The information seeker cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately, with the malafide intent of harassing the authority and making response to frivolous RTI queries occupy the majority of time and resource of any public a