Mr.Khem Lal Bansal vs Punjab And Haryana High Court on 5 August, 2010

                 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
             Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000405 dated 27.3.2009
               Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19

Appellant:           Shri Khem Lal Bansal,
Respondent:          High Court of Punjab & Haryana
                 Heard & Decision announced 5.08.2010


FACTS

By an application of 30.10.2008 Shri Khem Lal Bansal of Sector-28A,
Chandigarh applied to CPIO, Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking the
following information:

“1. If the concerned SSP, UT Chandigarh has sent his final
action taken report to the concerned Registrar of Punjab
and Haryana High court at Chandigarh, then please
supply me the copy of the same.

2. If the said SSP UT Chandigarh has not sent his final
action report to the concerned Registrar of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh then whether any
action has been taken or not on the issue. This
information is required.

3. If any action has not been taken against the concerned
SSP UT Chandigarh for not sending his final action taken
report then why not so? This information is also
required.”

Upon this, appellant Shri Khem Lal Bansal received a response from Shri
Kamal Kant, Deputy Registrar (Admn.), Punjab & Haryana High Court dated
1.12.2008 informing him as follows:-

“It is informed that the report sent by SSP, UT, Chandigarh to
this Court vide No. 1121-24/UT/Rd/SSP dated 30.5.06 is being
hereby, sent to you.”

A copy of the order of 31.5.2006 was attached. Upon this, appellant Shri
Khem Lal Bansal moved an appeal before Shri H. S. Thakur, Registrar
Administration, Punjab & Haryana High Court pleading that the information
provided was ‘improper and incomplete’. Appellate Authority Shri Harnam
Singh then dismissed this appeal with the following order of 22.12.2008:-

“The required information sought for by the appellant has
already been supplied to him by Ld. PIO. Although, it is
contended by the appellant that the said information vide report
dated 30.5.2006 issued by SSP, UT Chandigarh is not a

1
complete information in consonance with the order dated
16.5.2006 passed by Hon’ble High court. However, this
contention of the appellant is devoid of legal force because if
SSP, UT Chandigarh had not complied with the order of Hon’ble
High court, then appellant is at liberty to file contempt petition if
advised so. Therefore, no further information can be provided to
the appellant in this regard.”

Aggrieved with this order appellant Shri Khem Lal Bansal has then come
in second appeal before us with the following prayer:-

“Since, I am an affected person, so I have the right to
sough reasons for the Administrative or quasi-judicial
decisions. Further, the life and liberty of mien and my
family are involved, so the information sought by me from
the PIO concerned and later on, from the 1st appellate
authority is justified and their reply is un-satisfactory rather
incorrect, incomplete and misleading. So maximum relief,
please, be given to me which could be possible from the
side of the Commission.”

He has grounded his prayer on the following argument:-
“The PIO concerned and the 1st appellate authority has not
properly followed/ adopted the procedure which they can adopt
to supply me satisfactory reasoning of the sought information.”

The appeal was heard through video-conferencing on 5-8-2010. The
following are present.

Appellant at NIC Studio Chandigarh
Shri Khem Lal Bansal
Respondents at NIC Studio Chandigarh
Shri Harnam Singh, Appellate Authority
Shri O. P. Vig, PIO & Jt. Registrar
Shri Ranjit Singh, APIO

Shri O. P. Vig, PIO & Jt. Registrar submitted that the Hon’ble High Court
in its order in CWP No. 7515 of 2006 announced on 16.5.2006 to which
reference has been made by appellant Shri Khem Lal Bansal has not asked for
any report. This order of a Division Bench is as follows:-

“We dispose of the writ petition at this stage with a direction to
respondent No. 3 to take a decision on the complaint Annexure
P-8) by passing a speaking order within a period of two months
of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

It was, therefore, not necessary for SSP to submit a report on the action
taken to the High Court but since he had done so and the information is held by

2
the High Court this has been provided to appellant Shri Khem Lal Bansal.
There are no other documents asked for that are held by the Hon’ble High
Court, which they can share with appellant.

Appellant Shri Khem Lal Bansal on the other hand submitted that the
order of the High Court is not a speaking order; therefore, he wished to know
the reasons why the Hon’ble High Court has reached this decision.

DECISION NOTICE

In cases of this nature where applicant under the RTI Act is seeking
reasons for an order issued by Hon’ble Court we have a definitive ruling from
the Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No. 34868/2009; Khanapuram
Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors in which the Hon’ble Court
has held as follows:

“6. Under the RTI Act “information” is defined under Section 2(f)
which provides:

information” means any material in any form, including
records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices,
press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts,
report, papers, samples, models, 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.

This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the
RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence
and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course,
under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the
opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for
any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars,
orders, etc. have been passed, especially in matters pertaining
to judicial decisions. A judge speaks through his judgments or
orders passed by him. If any party feels aggrieved by the
order/judgment passed by a judge, the remedy available to such
a party is either to challenge the same by way of appeal or by
revision or any other legally permissible mode. No litigant can be
allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons the
judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge
is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had
come to such a conclusion1.”

1

Emphasis ours

3
Under the circumstances it is not for this Commission or indeed the
CPIO to ask for reasons with regard to passing of a decision by any Judge of
the High Court or the Apex Court. If on the other hand the decision has raised
some doubt for appellant, there are various legal mechanisms to challenge a
decision before a Full Bench of the High Court or SLP to the Supreme Court.
We can only conclude, like Appellate Authority Shri Harnam Singh that the
information in this case as held by the Hon’ble Court and which alone is
accessible under the ‘right to information’ as defined in Sec 2(j) of the Act has,
in fact, been provided to appellant Shri Bansal.

Notwithstanding the above, however, the attention of the Registrar of
Punjab & Haryana High Court is invited to section 7 (9) of the RTI Act which
clearly states as follows:-

‘An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form which it is
sought2’

In this case appellant Shri Khem Lal Bansal had sought information in
the form of three questions. He should have got an answer to each of the three.

However, because such information as is held by the Registry of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana has indeed been provided to Shri Bansal, there is no
cause of any further action by this Commission. Nevertheless, the above may
be noted as our observation by CPIO High Court of Punjab & Haryana whilst
dealing with RTI Applications in future.

Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
5-8-2010
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.

2

Underlined by us for emphasis

4
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
5-8-2010

5