1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2020 seeking information on the following points:—
1. When Prime Minister of India came to know about this COVID 19 pandemic.
2. What are the measures taken by PM to control this pandemic other than lockdown.
3. Is there any health pact signed by PM with other countries to control this COVID 19 disease. if so, provide those information. (information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form.)
4. Is there any special funds allocated to state governments to control this COVID-19. if not, Why PM has not allocated so far
5. From Question No. 4 If special funds allocated, How much has been allocated Please provide state-wise the funds allocated to each of its agency or department, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made.
6. Will Citizens of India get any Direct Benefit Transfer from the 20 lakh crore package.
7. How much Contingency Fund of India has been used for this COVID-19 pandemic? if not used why it has not been used.
8. How much expenditure has been made from Consolidated Fund of India for this COVID19.
9. Did India get any financial assistance from any country or IMF or WORLD BANK or any other global financial institutions if yes provide the detailed information.
10. Since Prime Minister of India holds public office, the funds collected in the name of PM-CARES (Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations) fund also comes under the ambient of public. How much funds have been collected under PM-CARES Fund.
11. If PM-CARES Fund does not comes under the ambient of RTI. How this resistance is being claimed or Under which article of constitution of India empower this resistance.
2. The PIO sent an online response dated 25.06.2020 stating as under:—
Application contains a multiplicity of requests on numerous and varied subjects. In this regard, attention of the applicant is drawn to the following ruling of the CIC:
Rajinder Singh v. CBI-Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2007/00967-decision dated 19.06.2009.
It is therefore not open to the applicant under the RTI Act to bundle a series of requests into one application unless these requests are treated separately and paid for accordingly----
2. In addition, applicants attention is also drawn to the honorable Supreme Courts observation in decision dated 09.08.2011 (Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay, wherein following has been stated:
Indiscriminate and impractical-----demands----under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information-----would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information------The nation does not want a scenario where 75 percent of the staff of public authorities spends 75 percent of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.
In view of the above no further response is required on the RTI application.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.06.2020. The FAA/Dy. Secretary vide order dated 15.10.2020 disposed of the first appeal based on the reasons given below:—
4. I have examined records in the matter. By way of appeal, you have expressed dissatisfaction with the response of CPIO, PMO and reiterated your request for information. On perusal of records, I find that the CPIO, PMO vide response dated 25.06.2020, had informed that the information sought is on multiple subjects and it was expected that you refocus your query while filing appeal. However, you do not seem to have done the needful and, as such, I find no plausible reason to interfere with the stand of the CPIO, PMO in the matter. In this regard, decision of Hon'ble CIC in case No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01256 titled as Wasi Ul Haque v. Union Public Commission may be referred;
“……….However, in (he decision of this Commission, in the file quoted above, that as per section 6(1) read with section 7(1) of the Act a request means that the questions and the answers must share an embryonic relationship, the genus of the application must be one and sub questions can constitute different species of the same genus………”
Further, it is observed that your queries are framed in the nature of questionnaire whereby clarification/opinions have been sought. Therefore, it is stated that, in your application, you have sought no information as per the definition of information defined under section 2(f) of the Act, which is defined as under:
“Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, model, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;”
In view of above, it is held that inputs provided suffice as they are as per records of this office, and, there is no other information remaining to be shared in the matter with you.
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
5. In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone attended the hearing through video conference, while the Appellant remained absent and has not communicated the cause of his absence to the Commission despite service of hearing notice in advance.
DECISION
6. Upon perusal of records of the case, no legal infirmity is found in the response furnished by the Respondent. The Appellant has neither attended the hearing to buttress his case nor submitted any justification for his dissatisfaction with the information furnished to him. In the given circumstances, the Commission finds no reason to intervene in this case, since no cause of action survives for further adjudication under the RTI Act.
7. The appeal is disposed off as such.