Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.4905/IC(A)/2009
F. Nos.CIC/MA/A/2009/000611
CIC/MA/A/2009/000612
CIC/MA/A/2009/000613
CIC/MA/A/2009/000614
CIC/MA/A/2009/000615
Dated, the 29th December, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. T. Raja Kumar
Name of the Public Authority: I.O.C.L.
i
Facts
:
1. The appellant has submitted five separate appeals, which were scheduled
for hearing on 23/12/2009. While the CPIO along with other colleagues was
present, the appellant did not avail of the opportunity of hearing.
2. The CPIO stated that the appellant has grievances regarding termination
of a Retail Outlet, which was allotted in favour of his wife. Due to non-
performance, the Retail Outlet was terminated. In this backdrop, the appellant
has put up as many as 102 RTI applications and submitted about 24 appeals
before the Commission. The CPIO alleged that the applicant has been misusing
the provisions of the Act, for harassing the respondent. The CPIO also stated
that in pursuance of the earlier appeals and consequent decisions of the
Commission (Decision Nos.3696/IC(A)/2008 and 3883/IC(A)/2009) the appellant
was allowed inspection of the relevant records. And thus the relevant
information, as available, has also been furnished.
3. The CPIO also submitted that the dispute between the parties has already
been referred to the Arbitrator and it may be hoped that the disputed matter
would be legally resolved.
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1
Decision:
4. The parties have a dispute regarding termination of a retail outlet. Now
since the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator, it is hoped that the appellant
would duly get legal relief in the matter.
5. The public authority has incurred a huge cost in servicing the RTI
applications. It is important, therefore, for a responsible citizen to exercise
restraint in putting up unnecessary RTI applications. In the instant case, the
appellant has put up a large number of applications, so as to pressurize the
respondent for redressal of his grievances for which there are no provisions
under the Act.
6. The fact that the appellant has already been allowed inspection of the
relevant records and the matter has also been referred to an Arbitrator, the
appellant is unnecessarily misusing the provisions of the Act. And in response to
the notice for hearing, he has not responded, which demonstrate lack of personal
or public interest in putting up appeals before the Commission. The appellant is
advised to exercise restraint in misusing the provisions of the Act.
7. With these observations, all the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner ii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Deputy Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Raja Kumar, Plot No.73, Dr. No.5-31, Indira Nagar Colony,
Srikakulam – 532 001. (A.P.)
2. Shri. S. Gopalakrishnan, CPIO, IOCL, A.P. State Office, 3-6-436 to 438,
IIIrd Floor, Naspur House, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029.
3. Shri. Gautam Dutta, Executive Director (HR) & AA, IOCL, Marketing
Division, Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
2