CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01284
Dated, the 20th February, 2009.
Appellant : Shri P.P. Rajeev Respondents : Cochin Port Trust
This matter came up for hearing on 10.02.2009 in response to
Commission’s notice dated 12.01.2009. Appellant was absent when called,
while the respondents were present through Mr.Cyril C. George, Secretary,
Cochin Port Trust.
2. Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 22.05.2008, raised certain
queries regarding certain relaxations given to a third-party ⎯ another employee
of the public authority ⎯ Ms.K.P. Thahira in respect of granting her a special
increment, allotting to her a departmental quarters, granting her an house
building advance and a non-refundable advance from the Contributory Provident
Fund. It is the appellant’s plea that the rules governing these several relaxations
granted to Ms.Thahira should be provided to him.
3. Respondents, through CPIO’s reply dated 06.07.2008 and Appellate
Authority’ order dated 11.08.2008, provided to him a range of information culled
out from the files, which belonged to the years 1978, 1990 and 1993.
Respondents have urged that they have provided to the appellant whatever
information they could gather from the records ⎯ old as these are ⎯ available in
this matter. Since the issues which have been brought up by the appellant were
considerably old, they were not in a position to tell him precisely about the
source of the power of relaxation exercised by the then Deputy Chairman of the
public authority.
4. Respondents have further pointed out that this appellant is a suspended
employee of the public authority and has been filing RTI-applications in large
numbers, mostly aimed at other colleagues in the public authority. Replies have
been furnished to the appellant without any let or hindrance after examining the
records in the files to which the information pertained. Respondents’ case is that
appellant filing so many RTI-applications was aimed mostly at harassing them
and not to elicit any information. This particular petition of the appellant is a
case in point, which raises issues about the source of the power exercised by a
high functionary of the public authority in granting relaxation to an employee of
AT-20022009-20.doc
Page 1 of 2
the public authority, all because the appellant has suspicion about the exercise of
those relaxation powers by the senior officers of the public authority, i.e. the
Deputy Chairman.
5. After perusing all the records, hearing the submissions of the respondents
and perusing the second-appeal petition of the appellant, I’m in agreement with
the respondents that no further information in this matter need be authorized to
be disclosed. Respondents have categorically stated in their replies whether or
not the relaxations as mentioned by the appellant were granted to the
third-party, Ms.K.P. Thahira. It is now open to the appellant to find out for
himself whether that relaxation was authorized or unauthorized. He cannot
engage the respondents in an ongoing dialogue about whether the relaxations
granted more than a decade ago were well within the norms of the rules then
extant. This shall be not only a fruitless exercise, it shall both be
time-consuming and a drain on the resources of the public authority. Appellants,
in matters such as this, are expected to exercise their own due diligence, based
upon the information they receive from the respondents, to draw appropriate
conclusions about their several apprehensions and suspicions. It is not for the
respondents to examine the records and to inform appellant as to whether a
discretionary power exercised by a functionary more than a decade ago, was
validly exercised. The fact is that such power was exercised and was
unchallenged for so many years. The present generation of officers cannot be
expected to act as judicial officers to pronounce on the validity of the exercise of
those powers.
6. In view of the above, I see no merit in this appeal, which I dismiss.
7. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-20022009-20.doc
Page 2 of 2