Central Information CommissionVijay Kumar Bunkar vs Geological Survey Of India on 9 September, 2021Author:Neeraj Kumar GuptaBench:Neeraj Kumar Guptaके   ीय सूचना आयोग\n                         Central Information Commission\n                            बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका\n                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                         नई  द ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\nि तीय अपील सं!या/Second Appeal Nos.           CIC/GSIND/A/2020/103308 and\nCIC/GSIND/A/2020/103309\n\nMr. Vijay Kumar Bunkar                                ... अपीलकता /Appellant\n                                    VERSUS\n                                      बनाम\nCPIO                                                  ..."ितवादी /Respondent\nM/o. Mines, Geological Survey Of\nIndia, Northern Region, Sector-E,\nAliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-\n226024\n\nRelevant dates emerging from the appeals:-\n\nRTI : 17-09-2019           FA       : 26-09-2019      SA      : 20-01-2020\n\nCPIO : 24-09-2019          FAO : 22-10-2019           Hearing : 06-09-2021\n\n                                  ORDER1.    The appellant filed an application under theRight to Information Act,\n2005(RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) M/o.\nMines, Geological Survey of India, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. The appellant\nseeking information is as under:-Page 1 of 42.     The CPIO vide letter dated 24.09.2019 had offered an inspection to the\nappellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the appellant\nfiled the first appeal dated 26-09-2019 requesting that the information should be\nprovided to him. The first appellate authority vide its order dated 22-10-2019\nupheld the reply furnished by the CPIO and disposed of the first appeal.\nThereafter the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3)of the RTI Act\nbefore the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to\nhim and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete\nand correct information.Hearing:3.     The appellant remained absent despite notice. The mobile number of the\nappellant remained unanswered despite several attempts made by the\nCommission. The respondent, Shri U. C. Gautam, Director/ CPIO attended the\nhearing through audio-call.4.     The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 27.08.2021 and\nthe same has been taken on record.5.     Since the appellant remained absent during the hearing he at a later stage\ncontacted the Commission telephonically and informed that he was waiting at\nthe NIC studio at Lucknow and has kept his mobile phone on silent, despite\nhaving the intimation from the Commission that the hearing will be held\nthrough audio conferencing. He further pleaded that his submission be taken on\nrecord that complete and correct information has not been provided to him\ndeliberately by the respondent on his RTI applications dated 17.09.2019 which\nis filed in the larger public interest since as many as 100 peoples are affected\nwith the same and the same is being filed on behalf of all.6.     The respondent submitted that vide their letters dated 24.09.2019, they\nhave furnished a point wise reply to the appellant and also offered him to\ninspect the documents related to his queries. He further submitted that thePage 2 of 4appellant also came for the inspection on 26.09.2019 and inspected the\ndocuments available on record.Decision:7.     The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and\nafter perusal of records, observes that the information sought by the appellant\npertains to all the documents, records, registers, and forms applications etc of\nDepartments, Divisions, Sections, and Units etc which are subordinate to the\nMinistry. The Commission further observes that the information sought is\ngeneric in nature and relates to multiple files, locations, etc., which is\nvoluminous in nature and is not readily available with the CPIO in the manner\nas sought by the appellant, collating and compiling of which would\ndisproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. . The\nCommission further observes that instead of seeking specific information\npertaining to his own, he is seeking information on behalf of numerous persons\nwhich cannot be allowed under theRTI Act. Nonetheless, the CPIO vide its\nreply dated 24.09.2019 has offered an inspection to the appellant which was\nalso availed by him on 26.09.2019.8.In this regard, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court of India inCentral Board of Secondary Education and Anr.\nVs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was\nheld as under:"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions underRTI Actfor disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to\n       transparency and accountability in the functioning of public\n       authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive\n       as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and\n       result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive\n       work of collecting and furnishing information.The Actshould not be\n       allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the\n       national development and integration, or to destroy the peace,\n       tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be\n       converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials\n       striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where\n       75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in\n       collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of\n       discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under theRTI Actand the pressure of the authorities under theRTI ActshouldPage 3 of 4not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information\n      furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."9.     Based on the abovementioned matrix, the Commission finds that the\nappellant is trying to settle public grievance through theRTI Act. RTI\ncannot be used as a tool for the grievance redressal and hence the\nCommission upholds the reply furnished by the CPIO/ FAA and hence no\nfurther intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For the\nredressal of his grievance, if any, the appellant is advices to approach the\nappropriate forum.10. With the above observations, the appeals are disposed of.11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.नीरज कु मार गु ा)\n                                      Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा\n                                                              सूचना आयु )\n                                    Information Commissioner (सू\n\n                                                      दनांक / Date : 06-09-2021\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)\n\nS. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),\nDy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),\n(011-26105682)\n\nAddresses of the parties:\n1.    CPIO\n      M/o. Mines, Geological Survey Of India,\n      Northern Region, Sector-E, Aliganj,\n      Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226024\n\n2.    Mr. Vijay Kumar BunkarPage 4 of 4