<div align="justify">
-The Times of India
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<em>HYDERABAD: </em>At a time when the central government is formulating ways to 'strengthen' the not-so-adequately used Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI) in the country, here is a man from AP who has been penalised by the state information commission for using the RTI a little too frequently. Turns out that E Sivaramanjaneyulu, a resident of Navapala village in Anantapur district, dashed off over 100 RTI applications, all directed to the agriculture department, over the past few years seeking extensive information about its operations, schemes and benefits extended to poor farmers.
</p>
<p align="justify">
But while the applicant had hoped that his incessant efforts would help unearth a wealth of 'facts and figures' about the government office, what has instead come his way is a strongly-worded order passed by information commissioner P Vijaya Babu who has even gone to the extent of branding Sivaramanjaneyulu as a 'nuisance' to the state department. Taking shelter under an old court order and Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act (the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest), Babu has exempted the concerned officers from providing further information to the applicant. His argument was that the information sought is of no public interest and voluminous. If that's not all, the order has also questioned the motive of the applicant behind floating the RTIs.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The startling 'verdict' was issued at a hearing on April 1, held after the aggrieved applicant approached the commission over six unsatisfactory responses to his queries filed with theagriculture department last year.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;How can a state information commissioner decide what I should ask,&quot; questioned Sivaramanjananeyulu ruing the judgment. &quot;I am very hurt by the attitude of the commissioner who seems to be siding with the concerned government officials and even directing me to stop 'harassing' them. Ideally, he should be ensuring that the information sought is furnished without any hassle and opposition from the concerned department,&quot; he added.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Ramanjaneyulu, who runs a quarterly magazine on agriculture, said that his only intention behind filing so many applications was to ascertain if the schemes and initiatives of the government were benefitting farmers.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The recent order has been met with severe criticism from RTI activists from across the state, who are now preparing to appeal for a review petition and also lodge a formal complaint against the commissioner, with the governor.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;The Act does not say anything about rejecting applications based on motives,&quot; said RTI activist Rakesh Reddy, adding, &quot;All through the order, there is no mention of the queries asked that could have decided if they were personal or of public interest. Instead, the order analyses the applicant's intentions. This only shows that the commissioner is behaving like a lawmaker.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
Another RTI activist and former IFS officer Padmanabha Reddy pointed out that the order was not in the right format as it was not a 'speaking order', much against the spirit of the Act. &quot;The order went into the antecedents of the applicant, which is not correct. Also, how can a single order be passed for six applications,&quot; he questioned.
</p>
<p align="justify">
When contacted, information commissioner Vijaya Babu maintained that the order was passed after much deliberation and in keeping with the Act. He claimed that the applicant had been flooding the department with an unreasonable number of applications.
</p>