CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2009/00016 dated 4.2.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Mani Ram Sharma
Respondent - Central Information Commission (CIC)
Facts
:
By an application of 7.7.08 Shri Mani Ram Sharma of Sardar Shahar, Distt.
Churu, Rajasthan applied to the CPIO, Central Information Commission, seeking
the following information:
1. “Certified copies of rejoinders filed by petitioner.
2. Justification established u/s 19(5) of the Act for non provision
of information.
3. Reasons for non imposition of penalty on the respondents.
4. Authority and reasons for granting adjournments in the
cases while neither any provision exist in the Act nor neither
of the parties has sought for adjournment and
5. Reasons for not considering the rejoinders submitted by the
petitioner in the cases.
To this he received response on 6.8.08 from CPIO Shri Prem Singh Sagar,
Under Secretary & Asstt. Registrar, CIC as below:
INFORMATION SOUGHT INFORMATION
AVAILABLE.
1. Certified copies of rejoinders filed by 1. Enclosed
petitioner. please.
2. Justification established u/s 19(5) of the Act for 2 to 5
non provision of information. Nothing to this
3. Reasons for non imposition of penalty on respect is available
the respondents. on the file.
4. Authority and reasons for granting
adjournments in the cases while neither any
provision exist in the Act nor neither of the parties
has sought for adjournment and
Reasons for not considering the rejoinders
submitted by the petitioner in the cases.
1
Not satisfied with this response, Shri Sharma moved a first appeal before
the Appellate Authority, Central Information Commission and on not receiving a
response has moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
“Your kind Honour is humbly requested to take judicial notice,
in terms of section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, of all the
laws requested, peruse the relevant record and order in the
appeal in favour of appellant as under:
A. The hearing may please be facilitated through video
conferencing through NIC Studio, Churu
B. The information requested may please be supplied
free of charge.
C. The respondent may please be ordered to reimburse
rupees 3100/- to petitioner for efforts, time,
correspondence, agony and harassment caused by
infringement of fundamental right.
D. The respondent be penalized u/s 20 of the Act and
the cost of defence be recovered personally from the
respondents and
E. Any other orders, reasoned strictly in accordance
with section 4(1) (d) of the Act, which may be deemed
expedient and fit for effective implementation of the Act,
be also pronounced.”
On this 2nd appeal the noting on File in response to the hearing notice of
26.3.2009 in which PPS to Secy., then Appellate Authority in this Commission,
has noted as follows:
“It has been checked up that no first appeal has been received in
Secretary/First Appellate Authority’s Office from Shri Mani Ram
Sharma.
Shri Mohammad Haleem Khan has relinquished the charge of
Secretary 1 , CIC on 1.4.09.”
Shri Sharma has also submitted an Email of 9.4.09 submitting as follows:
“I shall be participating in the hearing in the case, along with my
one associate for assistance, as per the scheduled programme.
My associate is not a practicing advocate as per rules of the
Commission. However, I would like to advise the Commission that
advocates has been permitted, contrary to rules by the Commission
on 25.5.08 in cases No. PB/A/2008/46 & 47 AND PB/C/2008/01761
And hence of 1st appellate authority in the Commission2
for advancing the arguments on behalf of errant respondents.
Unfortunately the cases have not been finalized by the Commission
and drifting till date. The above irregularity on the part of
Commission is the germane cause of the present appeal.”
The appeal was heard on 15.4.2009 by videoconference. The following are
present:
Appellant at NIC studio, Churu
Mr. Mani Ram Sharma
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Mr. Prem Singh Sagar, US
During the hearing Shri Sharma has contended that each organ of the
Central Information Commission like that of any public authority is accountable
under the RTI Act. Hence the decisions of the Information Commissioner are
also so accountable and it is the duty of the CPIO to provide the information
sought even if it pertains to the decision of an Information Commissioner.
DECISION NOTICE
Sec. 2(j) of the Right to Information, which defines the ‘Right to
Information’, reads as follows:
Sec. 2 (j)
“Right to information” means the right to information accessible
under this Act which is held by or under the control of any
public authority 2 and includes the right to–
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or
records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes,
video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through
printouts where such information is stored in a computer or
in any other device;”
2
Emphasised by us for ease of reference
3
The contention of appellant that all those in public office are subject to the
RTI Act is unquestionable. But it is also evident that the Right to Information
extends to all but only such information as emphasized by us in the quotation
above. If no such information is held by a public authority, it evidently cannot be
provided. Sec 2 (j) may be read with Sec 2(f) which defines ‘information’ as such
information that is held in material form.
Any Decision of this Commission is expected to a speaking order.
Although there cannot be an appeal against an order of the Commission, whose
orders in appeal “shall be binding” u/s 19 sub sec. (7). It is open to appellant to
move a Writ Petition challenging an order of a Commissioner should he find the
order defective in law. CPIO, CIC has provided the information held by the
Commission. But what appellant Shri Sharma is seeking is a review of the orders
of the Commission. The Right to Information Act cannot be sought to be used to
circumvent the procedure of the law. Moreover, under the Right to Information
Act, the Chief Information Commissioner has no authority to review a decision of
the Commission. The appeal on the information sought being without merit
is hereby dismissed
On the question of retention of legal Counsel, which has been objected to
by appellant in his Email quoted above and again in the hearing, the exact
wording of rule 7(4) of Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure)
Rules, 2005 is as follows:
“7(4) The appellant or the Complainant, as the case may be, may
seek the assistance of any person in the process of the
appeal while presenting his points and the person
representing him may not be a legal practitioner.”
In other words, it is not mandatory for a party to engage legal Counsel but it
is also not impermissible.
4
On the question of whether a final decision has been taken in the second
appeal of appellant Sh. Mani Ram Sharma, considered by this Commission in
File Nos. PBA/08/046 & 047 and No. PBN/08/0176,.this is an administrative
matter. Since the Information Commissioner then considering these appeals Ms.
Padma Balasubramanian has since demitted office on retirement, we will
examine the file and take a decision regarding disposal.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
15.4.2009
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
15.4.2009
5