* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 19th DECEMBER, 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:
+ W.P.(C) 11820/2021 & CM APPLs. 38010/2022, 38023/2022,
46873/2023
SHISHIR CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner-in-Person

versus

THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR.

..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.
Sunil, Advocate for CIC.
Mr. T Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq
Srivastava, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty,
Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Ms. Anum
Hussain, Mr. Aabhaas Sukhramani,
Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur, Advocates for
R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner herein seeks to
challenge the Order dated 19.08.2021, passed by the Central Information
Commission, rejecting the appeal filed by the Petitioner and further directing
the Registry of the Commission not to entertain any further cases from the
Petitioner herein on the same subject matter on the ground that the Petitioner
has abused the process of Right to Information.
2. The facts leading up to the instant case are that the Petitioner herein
filed an RTI application on 01.05.2019 seeking the following information:

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 1 of 22
 “1. A certified copy of Minutes of Meetings of Ethics
Committee that took up this instant appeal during its
meeting held on 16.11.2018 with deliberations/
discussions/findings of the Ethics Committee on the
four broad points listed below.

A. Presenting complaints of Vishal Chand in the

emergency ward of Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur
viz complaint of uneasiness and chest pain.

B. Presenting symptoms/clinical findings of Vishal

Chand in the Emergency Ward of Tata Main Hospital,
Jamshedpur viz High B.P of 150/100 and irregular and
abnormal E.C.G with multiple ischemic changes in
several nodes as opined by Dr. R. K. Sharma of AIIMS,
a cardiologist Dr. Dipak Das of Cuttack, Orissa and
Dr. Ravikumar Bhaskaran, Trivandnim, Kerela, all
three on affidavit and part of the case record.

C. The importance of probing family history of such a

patient having presenting symptoms and clinical
findings suggestive of cardio vascular event and
impending heart attack.

D. Standard Treatment Guidelines to be followed in

such a case in light of appellant's repeated submission
to MCI viz guidelines for treating cardiovascular
disease issued by Union Health Ministry, New Delhi;
JIPMER, Puducherry and Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital,
Mumbai.

2. Did the Ethics Committee of MCI reconstituted

under Board of Governors on 26.09.2018 considered
appellant's detailed submission of 110 pages submitted
in person as paper book at MCI office at Dwarka, New
Delhi on 10.10.2018 in response to MCI's letter No.
211(2)(83-Appeal) /2013/Ethics-138371 dt. 21.09.2018
calling upon the Appellant to appear before Ethics
Committee of MCI on 10.10.2018?”

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 2 of 22
 3. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) by Order dated
11.06.2019 furnished a para-wise reply to the Applicant, attaching a copy of
the Minutes of Meeting of the Ethics Sub-Committee. Further, the CPIO
vide letter dated 14.06.2019 furnished a certified copy of the resignation
letter dated 13.02.2019 of Dr. Sanjay Shrivastava, Secretary-General of the
Medical Council of India, Board of Governors.
4. Dissatisfied with the response from the CPIO, the Petitioner filed a
First Appeal on 17.06.2019. During the pendency of the First Appeal, the
Petitioner approached the CIC by filing a Second Appeal. The CIC held that
the facts of the case are squarely covered by the earlier decisions passed by
the Coordinate Bench of the CIC. The CIC was of the opinion that the
information sought in the present case arises due to untimely demise of the
younger brother of the Petitioner on account of alleged medical negligence
of Dr. Atul Chhabra of Tata Memorial Hospital, Jamshedpur. The CIC
enumerated the list of RTI applications filed by the Petitioner and the
repeated attempts on the part of the Petitioner to reopen the same issue again
and again, and held that the decisions already adjudicated by the CIC with
respect to the same subject matter have been considered from all aspects by
the CIC and that substantial amount of information has been made available
with the Petitioner. It was held that since the ambit of RTI Act is restricted
to ensure access to information from existing public records, the CIC finds
that enough relief under the RTI Act has already been explored. The CIC
was of the opinion that a trial of medical negligence cannot be held through
the process of RTI. The CIC, therefore, directed the Registry not to entertain

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 3 of 22
 any further cases from the Petitioner on the same subject matter. This Order
is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, leading to the present Writ
Petition, are as under:
a. It is stated that on 20.05.2011 the younger brother of the
Petitioner herein experienced chest pain and was rushed to the
emergency ward of Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur,
Jharkhand, where he was attended to by Dr. Atul Chhabra
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Doctor in question'). It is stated
that the Petitioner's brother passed away on the next day, i.e.
21.05.2011. It is stated that the Petitioner's family filed a
consumer case, bearing No.83/2013, on 04.04.2013 against the
Doctor in question before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the
NCDRC'). It is stated that an appeal was also filed by the
Petitioner before the Medical Council of India for revoking the
licence of the Doctor in question.
b. Material on record also discloses that the Petitioner has also
filed an FIR, being FIR No.164/2014 dated 04.05.2014,
registered at Police Station Bistupur, Jamshedpur, against the
General Manager, Medical Services, Tata Steel, under Section
304 IPC.
c. The Petitioner has also approached various forums and Courts
challenging the degrees obtained by the Doctor in question and
also questioned the treatment provided by the said Doctor to his
younger brother. Instead of going into the details of each and

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 4 of 22
 every RTI application filed by the Petitioner before various
authorities, a table demonstrating the same reads as under:

Date of filing
Information Information
S.No. RTI
Demanded sought from
Application

1 27.12.2014 Seeking information Medical

regarding admission Council of
of Dr. Atul Chhabra in India
MBBS course.

2 27.12.2014 Seeking reasons for Medical

the decision of the Council of
Ethics Committee India
dated 12.12.2014.

3 02.12.2015 Seeking copy of Medical

MBBS degree of Dr. Council of
Atul Chhabra. India

4 01.03.2016 Seeking information Medical

on the authenticity of Council of
MBBS degree of Dr. India
Atul Chhabra through
Bihar Medical
Council.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 5 of 22
 5 09.09.2017 Seeking list of Medical
documents perused by Council of
the Ethics Committee India
on the basis of which a
warning was issued to
Dr. Atul Chhabra.

6 30.06.2018 Seeking letter dated Medical

26.03.2018 issued to Council of
Dr. Atul Chhabra India
seeking his comments
on the issue of his fake
degree.

7 27.08.2018 Seeking findings of Medical

MCI in respect of the Council of
MBBS qualification of India
Dr. Atul Chhabra in
reference with the
affidavit filed by
Ranchi University.

8 01.05.2019 Seeking findings / Medical

reasons of Ethics Council of
Committee meeting India
dated 16.11.2018
when it was decided to

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 6 of 22
 reiterate the earlier
decision of issuing
warning to Dr. Atul
Chhabra.

RTI APPLICATIONS TO THE OTHER AUTHORITIES

9 06.10.2012 Seeking information Ministry of

on protocol for Health &
management of Family
patients complaining Welfare,
of chest pain/ GOI
uneasiness. transferred
RTI to All
India
Institute of
Medical
Sciences,
New Delhi.

10 10.06.2017 Seeking application Central

form and enrolment Board of
form filled by Dr. Atul Secondary
Chhabra to appear in Education,
the CBSE All India Delhi.
Pre Medical Pre
Dental Entrance

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 7 of 22
 Examination in the
year 1989-90 on the
basis of which he was
granted admission in
MBBS.

11 08.07.2017 Seeking information Central

regarding procedure to Bureau of
verify educational Investigation
qualification degree
submitted by a
medical doctor
alongwith SOP
followed by CBI in
such cases.

12 03.11.2017 Seeking information All India

on the Expert Medical Institute of
Opinion of a Medical Medical
Board constituted at Sciences,
AIIMS, New Delhi on New Delhi.
the request of CB,
CID, Jharkhand Police
to assist the
investigating agency
in filing the charge
sheet in the criminal

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 8 of 22
 case against Dr. Atul
Chhabra.

13 05.01.2018 Seeking merit list of Directorate

successful candidates General of
who had cleared the Health
AIPMT Exam of 1989 Services,
for admission to Medical
MBBS course. Examination
Cell

14 05.01.2018 Seeking information Central

regarding status of his Bureau of
criminal complaint Investigation
dated 18.12.2017
against members of
Medical Council of
India, Dr. Atul
Chhabra and his
Advocate, Mr. Punit
Tyagi under Section
120B,409 and 420 of
IPC.

15 17.06.2018 Seeking following National

information in respect Consumer
of roster of the Disputes

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 9 of 22
 Hon'ble Judges of Redressal
NCDRC and the Commission,
justification for New Delhi
transfer of an Hon'ble
Judge from one Court
to another.

d. Aggrieved by the Order of the Medical Council of India (MCI)

by only awarding the punishment to Dr. Atul Chhabra, the
Petitioner had approached this Court by filing a W.P. (C) No.
277/2017. In the said writ petition, the Petitioner also
challenged the degree granted to Dr. Atul Chhabra. This Court
by Order dated 30.08.2017 rejected the submission of the
Petitioner regarding the degree of Dr. Atul Chhabra. The said
Order dated 30.08.2017 reads as under:
“4. Respondent no.2 has also produced the original
degree dated 16.04.1998 awarded to him, which
indicates that respondent no.2 had passed the Bachelor
of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery Examination held
in the month of April 1995. He has also produced the
original certificate of registration of respondent no.2
with the Bihar Council of Medical Registration. It
appears that some confusion was caused because the
final examination is termed as the final examination
1994, although it was held in April 1995. The same is
apparent from the degree issued to respondent no.2. In
this view, this Court does not find that there is any
reason to further verify the medical qualifications of
respondent no.2. The said prayer is, accordingly,
rejected.”

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 10 of 22
 e. The said writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 277/2017 was finally
rejected by an Order dated 05.09.2017 by directing the MCI to
re-consider the matter afresh. The said Order dated 05.09.2017
was challenged by filing an LPA No.693/2017 which was
rejected by vide Order dated 26.04.2018. A review petition
being Review Pet. No.246/2018 was also filed against the said
Order which was also rejected vide Order dated 06.07.2018.
The said Order dated 06.07.2018 was challenged before the
Hon’ble Apex Court by filing an SLP being Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 41865/2018 which was also
dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Order dated
22.11.2018.
f. Material on record discloses that in compliance of the Order
dated 05.09.2017, the Ethics Committee considered the matter
in its meeting held on 10.10.2017 wherein it was recorded as
under:
“The Ethics Committee at its meeting held on
10th October, 2017 considered the matter and
noted that the above decision was approved by the
Executive Committee of the Council at its meeting
held on 15.06.2016 and the same was
communicated to Mr. Shishir Chand vide Council
letter dated 21.07.2016.

The Committee further considered the order dated

05.09.2017 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
The operative part of the Order is as under:-

“………
12. Keeping the above facts in mind, this Court is
of the view that it is apposite that MCI examine

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 11 of 22
 the matter afresh and take an informed view after
hearing the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2.
MCI may also seek an expert opinion, if
necessary.
13. The impugned order passed by MCI is,
accordingly, set aside and the concerned
Committee of MCI is directed to rehear the
concerned parties and take a decision afresh
uninfluenced by the decisions rendered earlier.
14. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of"

The Committee further deliberated upon the

matter in detail and after detailed deliberation is
of the unanimous opinion that as directed by the
Hon'ble Court the case needs to be re-opened and
directed the section to call bath the parties- the
appellant Mr. Shishir Chand and the respondent
doctor Dr. Atul Chhabra in the next/subsequent
meeting of the Ethics Committee.

The Ethics Committee further considered the

matter and noted that the Council office vide its
letter dated 30.01.2018 directed the appellant Mr.
Shishir Chand and the respondent doctor Dr. Atul
Chhabra to appear before the Ethics Committee
at its meeting scheduled to be held on 15.02.2018
along with all the relevant documents pertaining
to the matter.

The Ethics Committee noted that in pursuance to

the Council letter dated 30.01.2018 Mr. Shishir
Chand sent a letter dated 05.02.2018 inter alia
stating that he would not like to be part of the
proceeding before the Ethics Committee and
would prefer to wait until the decision of the
division bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
LPA no. 693 of 2017 filed by him.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 12 of 22
 Further on 15.02.2018 Mr. Punit D. Tyagi,
Advocate for Dr. Atul Chhabra appeared and
submitted an application requesting for a copy of
the appeal filed by Sh. Shishir Chand along with
all documents being relied upon in the appeal and
further requested for 2 weeks time to submit his
written statement.

The Ethics Committee unanimously decided that

since there is no order direction by the Hon' bit
division bench of the Delhi High Court regarding
any stay on the present proceedings, the
proceedings before the Ethics Committee shall
continue even if the appellant chooses to wait
until the decision of the Hon’ble Division bench of
the Delhi High Court. Further the Committee
directed the Ethics Section that a copy of the fresh
appeal alongwith the all supporting documents be
provided to Dr. Atul Chhabra and directed Dr.
Atul Chhabra to submit his written statement on
or before the next date to be fixed in the matter.

The Ethics Committee at its meeting held on 30th

and 31st August, 2018 further considered the
matter and noted that as per the above decision of
the Ethics Committee, the Council office vide its
letter dated 26.03.2018 requested Dr. Atul
Chhabra to provide his written submission in the
form of affidavit with documentary proof within a
period of 15 days from the date of dispatch of the
letter. A reminder was also sent on 20.06.2018.

The Committee further noted that in reply, Sh.

Punit D. Tyagi, Counsel for the respondent
doctor, vide his letter dated 27.06.2018 has
informed that they had already filed the written
submission on 11.04.2018 on behalf of Dr. Atul
Chhabra, which is kept in record.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 13 of 22
 The Committee further noted that a note dated
23.08.2018 from the Legal Section of the Council
enclosed therewith a letter dated 13.07.2018 from
the Admn. Officer Judl (Writs) for Registrar
General, High Court of Delhi forwarding
therewith order dated 06.07.2018 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the above
captioned matter. The enclosed court order is
self-explanatory. However, the Court order dated
06.07.2018 reads as under:-

"After hearing the learned counsel for the

Petitioner, we find the no ground is made out to
review the order.

The review petition filed by the Petitioner is

therefore, dismissed."

The Ethics Committee further discussed the

matter and deliberated upon the matter at length
and noted that in pursuance to the Council letter
dated 30.01.2018 whereby Mr. Shishir Chand was
asked to appear before the Ethics Committee at its
meeting scheduled to be held on 15.02.2018, he
had sent a letter dated 05.02.2018 interalia
stating that he would not like to be part of the
proceeding before the Ethics Committee and
would prefer to wait until the decision of the
division bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
LPA no. 693 of 2017 filed by him.

Further the Ethics Committee at its meeting held

on 15.02.2018 unanimously decided that since
there is no order/ direction by the Hon' ble
division bench of the Delhi High Court regarding
any stay on the present proceedings, the
proceedings before the Ethics Committee shall
continue even if the appellant chooses to wait

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 14 of 22
 until the decision of the Hon'ble Division bench of
the Delhi High Court.

The Committee now noted that the High Court of

Delhi vide their order dated 06.07.2018 has
already decided the matter and have decided to
dismiss the review petition filed by the Petitioner.

Further the Committee directed the Ethics Section

that an opportunity of hearing be granted to both
the parties-- the appellant. Mr. Shishir Chand and
the respondent doctor Dr. Atul Chhabra. The
Ethics Committee further decided to call both the
parties to appear before the Ethics Committee in
its next/subsequent meeting."

g. The matter was then considered by the Ethics Committee at its

various meetings and the present Ethics Committee formed
under the Board of Governors reconsidered the matter in its
meeting held on 16.11.2018. The relevant portion of the
proceedings reads as under:
"...the Ethics Committee considered the matter
and noted the order of the Delhi High Court for
examining the matter afresh after hearing both the
parties.

The Ethics Committee further noted that the

Council office vide its letter dated 06.11.2018
directed Dr. Atul Chabbra and Sh. Shishir Chand
to appear before the Ethics Committee on
16.11.2018 alongwith all the relevant documents
pertaining to the matter.

The respondent doctor Dr. Atul Chabbra

appeared before the Committee on 16.11.2018,
the Committee heard him in detail and directed

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 15 of 22
 him to submit his statement, to which he complied.
Further, the appellant Sh. Shishir Chand vide
letter dated 12.11.2018 informed the Committee
that he would not be participating in the
proceedings of the Medical Council of India as
his SLP against order of Delhi High Court is
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India.

The Committee deliberated upon the matter at

length and observed the following:

> The patient Mr. Vishal Chand visited Tata Main

Hospital, Jamshedpur on 20.05.2011 and was
given treatment by Dr. Atul Chabbra.

> Dr. Mul Chabbra in his statement submitted

before the Ethics Committee has further enclosed
a copy of the ECG report of the patient taken on
20.05.2011. The ECG did not show any definite
evidence of coronary artery disease at that time.

In view of above, the Ethics Committee decided to

reiterate the decision of the erstwhile Ethics
Committee taken at its meeting held on 18th &
19th July 2014 of issuing warning to Dr. Atul
Chabbra."

h. The aforesaid finding is not a subject matter of challenge in any

further proceedings and has attained finality.
i. A perusal of the chart shows that the Petitioner has been
repeatedly trying to question the degree of Dr. Atul Chhabra
despite this Court, vide Order dated 30.08.2017, in W.P. (C)
No. 277/2017, having held that the said Doctor has requisite
qualification and the said Order has attained finality inasmuch

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 16 of 22
 as the same has been upheld by the Division Bench of this
Court vide its Order dated 26.04.2018 in LPA No.693/2017. It
is pertinent to mention that a Review Petition, being Review
Pet. No.246/2018, was also filed before the Division Bench and
the same has also been dismissed by this Court vide its Order
dated 06.07.2018 and the SLP filed by the Petitioner, being SLP
(C) No. 41865/2018, challenging the Order passed by the
Division Bench, has also been dismissed vide Order dated
22.11.2018.
j. Even though the matter has attained finality, the Petitioner
herein has kept on seeking information in some way or the
other to implicate Dr. Atul Chhabra. In fact, material on record
also shows that the Order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Ethics
Committee has not been challenged and instead the Petitioner
has sought to question the proceedings of the Ethics Committee
by seeking the documents placed before the Ethics Committee
and later by filing an application dated 01.05.2019 seeking
findings and reasons of the Ethics Committee when the
Committee decided to reiterate its earlier decision.
k. On 27.08.2018 the Petitioner filed an RTI Application seeking
findings of the MCI in respect of the MBBS qualification of Dr.
Atul Chhabra in reference with the affidavit filed by Ranchi
University. Vide application dated 01.05.2019 the Petitioner has
sought for findings/reasons of the Ethics Committee meeting
dated 16.11.2018 as to why the punishment of issuing only a
warning to Dr. Atul Chhabra has been given. Vide RTI

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 17 of 22
 Application dated 06.10.2012 the Petitioner has sought
information on protocol for management of patients
complaining of chest pain/ uneasiness from the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare. The Petitioner has also sought for
the application form and enrolment form filled by Dr. Atul
Chhabra to appear in the CBSE All India Pre Medical Pre
Dental Entrance Examination in the year 1989-90, on the basis
of which he was granted admission in MBBS.
l. The Petitioner has also filed an RTI with the CBI and has
sought information regarding procedure to verify educational
qualification degree submitted by a medical doctor along with
the standard operating procedure followed by the CBI in such
cases. The Petitioner has also sought for information on the
Expert Medical Opinion of a Medical Board constituted at
AIIMS, New Delhi on the request of CB, CID, Jharkhand
Police to assist the investigating agency in filing the charge
sheet in the criminal case against Dr. Atul Chhabra. By way of
an RTI dated 05.01.2018, the Petitioner herein has also sought
for the merit list of successful candidates who had cleared the
AIPMT Exam of 1989 for admission to MBBS course from the
Directorate General of Health Services, Examination Cell. The
Petitioner has also sought information regarding status of his
criminal complaint dated 18.12.2017 against members of
Medical Council of India, Dr. Atul Chhabra and his Advocate,
Mr. Punit Tyagi, which was filed under Sections 120B, 409 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner has gone to the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 18 of 22
 extent of filing an RTI application dated 17.06.2018 seeking
information from the NCDRC in respect of roster of the Judges
of NCDRC and the justification for transfer of a Judge from one
Court to another. The CIC disposed of the appeal observing as
under:-
"In the light of the aforementioned facts discussed at length,
it is noted that while information as defined under Section
2(f) of the RTI Act has been furnished by the Respondent,
what the Appellant seeks to obtain is justification of the
alleged addition, deletion, modification, correction made by
Dr. Gurpreet Wander to the proceedings of the Appellant's
case. Records of the case reveal that Respondent has tried to
answer the queries of the Appellant, though the Appellant is
not satisfied with the reply. Respondnet- Ms. Juneja has
sought time to revisit the queries and search if any possible
information is available, with the newly constituted National
Medical Commission. The Respondent is granted six weeks to
trace if any further information, if available on record which
can be provided to the Appellant in terms of the RTI Act.

PIO shall submit a compliance report before the Commission

by 10.10.2021, with respect to the above directions upon
sending the Appellant, additional information if any found by
her from the official records."

m. While hearing an appeal filed by the Petitioner, the CIC, by the

order impugned herein, barred the Petitioner from filing any
further applications against any public authority on the subject
matter of his brother's death.
n. The Petitioner has, thereafter, approached this Court by filing
the present Writ Petition.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 19 of 22
 6. Right to Information Act, 2005 was brought out with a laudable
objective of bringing about transparency in the functioning of the
Government. The Act was brought into to provide for secure access to
information to every citizen, and to prevent corruption and to hold
Governments and their instrumentalities accountable. However, this Court is
now seeing increasing abuse/misuse of the RTI Act and this case is a classic
case of abuse of the Right to Information. The purpose of the RTI Act is
meant to further good governance, and unfortunate misuse of the same will
only dilute its importance as well as make government servants dither from
carrying out their activities. It will also prevent doctors from taking steps in
emergent situations fearing the consequences of the same. This Court has
unfortunately been coming across various cases where abuse of RTI has led
to paralysis and fear among Government officials.
7. A perusal of the queries raised in the RTI application reveals that the
Petitioner has once again attempted to extract information regarding the
findings and reasoning of the Ethics Committee rather than challenging the
Order of the Ethics Committee. Undoubtedly, the Petitioner is abusing the
Right to Information Act by repeatedly filing applications by either trying to
ascertain the degree of Dr. Atul Chhabra, the issue which has already
attained finality by the Orders of this Court as well as the Apex Court, or by
trying to question the decision making process adopted by the Ethics
Committee.
8. The Ld. CIC by the Impugned Order notes that the information sought
by the Petitioner has been furnished by the Respondent/PIO, National
Medical Commission and what the Petitioner seeks to obtain is the
justification of the alleged addition, deletion, modification and correction

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 20 of 22
 made to the proceedings of the case of the Petitioner. The Ld. CIC was of
the opinion that records of the case reveal that the Respondent/PIO National
Medical Commission had tried to answer the queries of the Petitioner,
however, the Petitioner was not satisfied with the reply. The Ld. CIC was
considerate enough to direct the Respondent/PIO National Medical
Commission to revisit the queries and see if any further information was
available on record which could be provided to the Petitioner and for which
the Respondent/PIO National Medical Commission was directed to submit a
compliance report before the CIC by 10.10.2021. The said portion of the
Order does not require any interference.
9. However, the question which arises for consideration before this
Court is whether the CIC can restrain the Petitioner from making further
queries under the RTI Act by directing the Central Registry of the
Commission not to entertain any further cases from the Petitioner on the
same subject matter ?
10. The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been brought about for
providing greater and more effective access to information to the citizens.
Though the Petitioner has been abusing the process of RTI, it is the duty of
the authorities to provide information and when the information stands
provided then there is no necessity to provide the same information.
However, if further information is sought, then the right of the person cannot
be extinguished. In fact, the RTI Act does not provide for dismissal of an
application with costs. Information which has already been furnished need
not be furnished again, and the application can be rejected on this ground.
However, a citizen's right to claim information under RTI Act cannot be
doused if further or fresh information is sought. The RTI Act provides for

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 21 of 22
 payment of costs by public authority if any loss is caused or any other
detriment is suffered by the complainant or if the Central Information
Commission or the State Information Commission, without any reasonable
cause, fails to receive an application for information or has not furnished
information within the time specified or has given incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of
the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information. There
is no provision for imposing costs if information is sought repeatedly.
11. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner has
not sought for the same information but has only sought further information,
and therefore, the Ld. CIC ought not to have passed the direction to the
Central Registry of the Commission not to entertain any further cases from
the Petitioner herein on the same subject matter.
12. In view of the above, this Court is, therefore, inclined to set aside the
relevant portion of the Order of the Ld. CIC by which the Ld. CIC has
directed the Central Registry of the Commission not to entertain any further
cases from the Petitioner herein on the same subject matter. The Court is
sympathetic to the pain of the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner is advised
not to abuse the process of law by trying to seek the same information over
and over again, thereby diluting the very objective of the Act.
13. The Writ Petition is allowed in part. Pending application(s), if any,
stand disposed of.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
DECEMBER 19, 2023
Rahul

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:19.12.2023
18:56:19 W.P.(C) 11820/2021 Page 22 of 22