Central Information Commission

Note by applicant on page#3,5 CIC/SG/A/2009/002832

Dated April 16 , 2010

Name of the Applicant : Sh. Ketan P. Bhatt

Name of the Public Authority : Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad

Background

1. The Applicant, a Senior Computer Professional working with the Respondent Institute filed RTI

application 09.12.2008 seeking detailed information about response of Dr. Singhania,

Chairperson, BoG, IIMA to the Applicant’s letter dated 01.07.2008, names of official/s

responsible for delay in furnishing of response, details including date of formulation, officials

who formulated, members of the such committee, number of grievance cases redressed and

pending etc. pertaining to policy document/s, if any, on Grievance Redressal Mechanism for

employees as well as faculty, and a copy of such Policy Document.

2. The PIO responded by his communication dated 08.01.2009 providing information as available

with him. Information about Grievance Redressal Mechanism and Grievance Redressal

Committee was provided, but since no policy existed, accordingly no policy document was

furnished. It was further informed that while Grievance Redressal policy was being framed for

the employees, no Committee existed for the faculty members.

3. Being dissatisfied with the communication received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First

Appeal on 07.02.2009 alleging that the denial of information by the PIO was wrongful, arbitrary and the

communication by the PIO as being evasive. He also sought tabular form of accurate information as

opposed to the allegedly vague information provided. Furthermore the Appellant while seeking personal

hearing before the First Appellate Authority sought the presence of a personal videographer and an RTI

expert during the hearing.

4. The Appellate Authority passed an order dated 13.03.2009 deciding the First Appeal upholding

the PIO’s communication dated 08.01.2009. The Appellant Authority turned down the

Appellant’s request for a personal hearing in the presence of a videographer and an RTI expert

on the ground that the RTI Act 2005 does not provide for the same; and further contended that
 the Appellant’s intention is not merely to seek information nor redressal of any grievance but his

attempts were directed to malign the institute and its reputation. Referring to the existence of

the Grievance Redressal mechanism existent in the Institute, the Appellate Authority endorsed

the action taken by the PIO and confirmed that the PIO has already provided complete

information about the same.

1

5. The Appellant filed a Complaint dated 15.05.2009 before the Central Information Commission

feeling aggrieved by the communications received from the PIO and the AA. The Appellant

contended that the Public Authority had misused provisions of the RTI Act 2005. The Complaint

was registered as an Appeal by the CIC.

3
6. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for

March 17, 2010 and the notice dated 15.02.2010 for the hearing was accordingly sent to the

parties.

7. Mr. K S Joshi, Establishment Officer and Mr. N V Pillai, Chief Admn. Officer represented the

Public Authority.

8. The Applicant was present in person during the hearing.

Decision

9. During the hearing both the parties reiterated their submissions. The Respondent in its

communication addressed to the Commission expressed serious concern over the manner in

which the Appellant had been using RTI application to thrust derogatory remarks/comments on

individuals working in the Institute. While the Respondent supported the Appellant’s right to

seek information, the content of the RTI applications were alleged to be false and violative of

the right to dignity of individuals and the Institute. The Respondent further emphasized on the

communication dated 13.03.2009 whereby the Appellate Authority had disposed of the First

Appeal. It was contended by the Respondent that to the best of his knowledge, the Appellant

had not specifically written any letter to the Chairperson, but had merely put up an open satirical

letter addressed to the Chairman of Board of Governors of the Institute in all electronic notice

boards of the Institute on 02.07.2008. While a hardcopy of the same was marked to the Director

for sending the same to the Chairman of Board of Governors of the Institute, no copy was

marked to the PIO and hence the PIO confessed ignorance about the same. Since the
 document was not marked/ addressed to the PIO, the First Appellate Authority in his decision

dated 13.03.2009 affirmed the PIO’s action while disposing of the RTI application. It has further

been elaborated by the Respondent that the Director of the Institute was not obliged to simply

send to the Chairman any document received without application of his mind and that the

documents addressed to the Chairperson need to be handled with due diligence before being

placed before him. The Respondent also placed on record two letters dated 06.07.2007 and

05.06.2009 respectively. While the letter dated 06.07.2007 addressed to the Commission

narrated the grievance of the Respondent being harassed by the nature of the RTI applications

filed by the Appellant herein, the second letter dated 05.06.2009 addressed to the Appellant

was a tabular note indicating the receipt of some RTI application dated 04.05.09 by various

departments, current status of the same and the file notings with respect to the same. The letter

dated 05.06.2009 addressed to the Appellant alongwith the other correspondences viz. the PIO

and FAA’s responses illustrated that the Respondent had responded to the queries of the

Appellant herein from time to time. That the responses were unacceptable to the Appellant is

undoubted, however the records indicate that the Appellant’s RTI application were more

accusatory in nature and did not specifically aim at seeking any information. In view of the fact

that the Respondent has been communicating from time to time and responding to the

Appellant’s queries, therefore no case for compensation etc is prima facie made out since no

loss or detriment has been suffered by the Appellant for the non response by the Respondent.
All the 3 decision are in Ketan's fovor. Non-compliance show cause notice issued in ALL 3 cases.

 The records of this case and the other three cases being no. CIC/SG/A/2009/000116,
CIC/SG/A/2009/002806, CIC/SG/A/2009/000117 filed by the Appellant herein and the contents

of the letter dated 06.07.2007 alongwith other repeated communications received from the

Respondent even thereafter complaining that the Appellant has been abusing the provisions of

the RTI Act to level unsubstantiated allegations against the Respondent Institute, containing

manifestly his personal grievances unconnected with any public purpose, the Commission

observes that the RTI queries of the Appellant herein are a reflection of his personal grievances

with the Institute. The RTI applications contain more allegations than they seek information.

While the scope of the RTI Act is restricted to dissemination of information in order to promote

transparency and better functioning by the Public Authority, it cannot be overlooked that

accusatory, contents in RTI Applications simply in order to settle personal score frustrates the

purpose and is against the spirit of this people-oriented Act. An Act specifically promulgated to

empower the citizenry of the nation to procure necessary information, will run the risk of being

Copies of letter dated 06.07.2007 and "other repeated communications" not

given to Ketan before commission made these observations.
 abused as a weapon and jeopardizing the functioning of the Public Authority like in the instant

case, an educational institution has been rendered almost like a grievance redressal forum

answering deluge of questions. This was clearly never the aim of the Act which only targeted

better governance and administration of the Public Authorities. In this context, it is relevant to

mention the reliance placed by the Respondent on the CIC decision in CIC/AT/A/2007/00018

dated 26.02.07 in the case S P Goyal vs. Income Tax, discusses this very aspect as follows:

“…..16. This Commission in normal course allows information about action on the
petitions made by the citizens to the public authority to be disclosed to the citizens.
But it also takes the precaution to ensure that these petitions are not without an
element of public purpose in them. The case of the appellant does not fall in that
category. He is admittedly at the receiving end of law enforcement function by a
public authority and has retaliated by writing a spate of letters to that public authority
in connection with that act of law enforcement. In that sense, the public authority
was wholly within its right in declining this information to him which was manifestly
personal in nature and unconnected with any public purpose. The contention of the
public authority is, therefore, upheld. the scope of the grievance of the Appellant is
further curtailed.

10. In the light of the facts of the case, thus the importance of the document, better and proper

handling whereof has been prayed for by the Appellant becomes a relative term, to be decided by the

Respondent viz. the Director of the Institute in this case at his discretion. It does not fall within the

jurisdiction of this Commission to direct the Institute or any Public Authority on classifying the

importance of the documents. The case is accordingly disposed of.

Note by applicant on next page. (Annapurna Dixit)

Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:

(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar

Cc:

1. Sh. Ketan P Bhatt

“OM”, 1, Gunjan Park
AMC Office Road, Thaltej Lake
Ahmedabad,

2. The PIO
Indian Institute of Management
Vastrapur
 Ahmedabad – 3800015
Gujarat

3. Appellate Authority
Indian Institute of Management
Vastrapur
Ahmedabad – 3800015
Gujarat

4. Officer in charge, NIC

CIC/SG/A/2009/000116 ---> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/SG-08042009-04.pdf

5. Press E Group, CIC
CIC/SG/A/2009/000117 ---> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/SG-08042009-03.pdf
CIC/SG/A/2009/002806 ---> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/AD-17032010-10.pdf

NOTE : On page#3 Hon. IC Mrs. Dixit has made adverse

observations on applicant. These are based on 5 facts,
a) 3 CIC files CIC/SG/A/2009/000116, CIC/SG/A/2009/000117,
CIC/SG/A/2009/002806
b) Letter dated 06.07.2007 from IIMA to the Commission
c) other repeated IIMA communications to the Commission

Strange that CIC decisions in ALL 3 of the files listed at (a)

above infact overrule positions taken by PIO. Not only that,
Commission has issued show-cause notices (due to non-compliance) to
PIO in ALL 3 of these CIC files.

As for other two facts listed at (b) & (c) above, Hon. IC Mrs.
Dixit did not care to provide copies of these communications to the
applicant. She did not care to allow applicant to file his
rejoinder before she made such adverse observations.

On 09-Jul-2010 PIO of CIC decided that (b) is NOT there on CIC

records and as for (c) there are 7 "innocent" letters/emails that
CIC received from IIMA. None of these even remotely allege any
abuse of RTI Act by the applicant.