Daram Ravi Raj vs The Chief Information Commissioner, A.P. Information Commission, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzividu Division and The Tahsildar

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The petitioner is a resident of Katuru Village, Vuyyuru Mandal, Krishna District, and is said to be a Para Legal Volunteer. He submitted an application dated 18-04-2008, under the Right to Information Act (for short ''the Act''), to the Tahsildar, Vuyyuru Mandal, the 3rd respondent herein, with a request to furnish information on seven aspects. They are in relation to the particulars of poor persons without houses, the nature of steps taken for providing house sites to them, the list of persons, who are extended such benefit, etc. Stating that he did not receive any information within the stipulated time, he filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzividu Division, the 2nd respondent, u/s 19(1) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent also did not furnish any information. Therefore, he filed a Second Appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner, the 1st respondent, and the same was taken up as Appeal No. 6601/CIC/2008.

The petitioner was issued a notice dated 04-06-2009, stipulating 09-06-2009 as the date for appearance of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The petitioner states that on 04-06-2009, the 3rd respondent furnished him some information and on receipt of the same, he informed that fact to all the respondents on the next date itself. He states that he did not appear before the 1st respondent on 09-06-2009, in view of the developments that have taken place subsequent to 04-06-2009. The 1st respondent passed an order on 11-06-2009, closing the appeal by taking note of the developments.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has not imposed penalty, as provided for u/s 20 of the Act, against the respondents 2 and 3, and to that extent, the order dated 09-06-2009 is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The petitioner contends that the respondents have violated the very spirit of the Act.

On behalf of the petitioner, Sri Venugopal Rao, learned Counsel, advanced arguments. He submits that the petitioner sought information with a view to help the deserving poor and respondents 2 and 3 did not discharge their obligations under the Act. Learned Counsel contends that it is a fit and deserving case for imposing penalty on respondents 2 and 3.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has misused the facility, provided for under the Act. He contends that soon after receiving the application from the petitioner, the 3rd respondent furnished the information through courier, on 03-06-2008 itself, and that suppressing that fact, the petitioner went on harassing respondents 2 and 3. He submits that the very fact that the petitioner did not appear before the 1st respondent on the stipulated date discloses lack of bona fides on his part.

The Act has made several persons busy and substantial number of them are deriving much benefit out of it. Since the Act does not insist on relevance or entitlement of an applicant, to seek information, anybody can seek information, in relation to anything of his choice. He does not owe any explanation to anyone, why he wants it. It is quite possible for a person residing in Kanyakumari to seek information from an official in Jammu and Kashmir, on an aspect totally unrelated to him, and under no other enactment, the officials are kept on their toes, as are done, under this enactment. Any lapse on their part would visit them, not only with the penalty, but also disciplinary action. It is not without reason that there is a serious thinking to review the working of the Act, hardly within five years of it, coming into force. In his application, the petitioner wanted the 3rd respondent to furnish information on the following aspects:

Furnish copy of the list of the Poor (with the Names) who are not having Houses within Vuyyur Gram Panchayat.

To how many persons, house sites were distributed from the year 2005 to till date and the extent of land distributed to each person.

In which area, in which Survey number and to how many beneficiaries the land was distributed.

Furnish the list of the beneficiaries.

On which date the Assignment Committee meeting has been held for selecting the beneficiaries.

For how many eligible persons list was placed before the Assignment Committee and how many beneficiaries were selected and were deleted.

Were any persons sanctioned house sites in Vuyyur Village, if so give details and allotment of land sanctioned.

Alleging that the 3rd respondent did not comply with the request, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and repeating the same complaint, he filed a further appeal before the 1st respondent. Notices dated 04-06-2009 were issued to the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 3rd respondent, on the other hand, requiring them to appear before the 1st respondent on 09-06-2009. On 04-06-2009, the petitioner was delivered a bunch of papers through a covering letter dated 20-05-2009, addressed by the 3rd respondent. A perusal of the same discloses that the information sought for by the petitioner was furnished to him on 03-06-2008, through courier. The petitioner acknowledged this letter as well as the enclosures, on 04-06-2009 itself. Though he states that on the next day, he informed all the respondents that he received the information, he did not enclose any such communication in this writ petition. It is not in dispute that he did not appear before the 1st respondent on 09-06-2009. Taking note of the various developments, the 1st respondent closed the appeal through order dated 11-06-2009. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent did not impose penalty on respondents 2 and 3.

This Court is of the view that the petitioner has taken the respondents for a ride. His intention appears to be more to harass, if not blackmail them, than to seek any information. The record discloses that the respondents have identified about 600 beneficiaries for providing house sites and necessary steps were taken to provide house sites. They did continue their efforts, notwithstanding shortcomings at the institutional and organizational level. There would have been certainly justification for any deserving person, who is left out to approach respondents 2 and 3. Even the petitioner could have espoused the cause of such persons. The nature of information sought for by him is such that, it is not at all of any help to individual beneficiaries. On the other hand, it is prone to be used as a handle, to derive undue benefits. Requiring respondents 2 and 3 to attend such queries would have its own impact upon their regular functions. Deterrence under the Act is so severe that even where the aggrieved persons pursue their matters with respondents 2 and 3, the resultant proceedings are sent by ordinary post, whereas, in the instant case, all the information requested by the petitioner was sent through courier. It is doubtful whether the dispatch would be made through courier from Tahsildar office, even to the Government. When such was the precedence accorded to the petitioner, he does not appear to have been satisfied with that. He wanted to score additional points and satisfy his ego, and wanted penalty to be imposed upon respondents 2 and 3.

The petitioner did not deny the contents of the letter, dated 20-05-2009, served upon him on 04-06-2009. Hence, they have to be treated as correct and there is no reason why the 3rd respondent would say something contrary to record. Thus, it emerges that the information sought for by the petitioner was sent to him, through courier on 03-06-2008, and despite the same, he proceeded to file appeal, and thereafter, second appeal.

The lack of bona fides or uncertainty on the part of the petitioner is evident from the fact that he did not choose to appear before the 1st respondent, having put the machinery into motion. One can imagine the extent of dislocation and the expenditure involved in requiring the 3rd respondent to appear before the 1st respondent by traveling all the way from Vuyyuru to Hyderabad. The petitioner merrily remained at his house. This Court is of the view that, a time has come to contain such misadventures.

The writ petition is dismissed, with costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The amount shall be remitted to the account of the 3rd respondent, and he shall utilize the same for procuring stationery and related items, for furnishing information prayed for under the Act. In case the amount is not deposited by the petitioner, within two months from today, the 3rd respondent shall be entitled to recover the same, by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.