CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001647/SG/14709
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001647/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Madhav Balwant Karmarkar,
B - 6, Panchratna Housing Society,
13, Sheela Vihar Colony,
Pune - 411038
Respondent : Mr. K. R. Joshi,
PIO & Section Officer,
Debts Recovery Tribunal,
Ministry of Financial Services,
PMT Commercial Building - 1,
Shankarsheth Road, Swargate,
Pune - 411042
RTI application filed on : 22/03/2010
PIO replied on : 16/04/2010
First Appeal filed on : 28/09/2010
Order of FAA : Not enclosed
Second Appeal received on : 03/11/2010
Information sought:
1. The orders issued by the PO, DRT, Pune for enquiry into the relevant matter.
2. The orders issued against the recovery officer for the mentioned misappropriation and non-
submission of accounts.
3. Accounts submitted by the Recovery Officer every quarter from the date of first recovery from the
garnishee in the mentioned matter till the end of recovery from the said garnishee M/s Kirloskar Oil
Engines Pvt Limited as per Regulation No 58(24).
4. The particulars of the amount deposited by the garnishee with the recovery officer, DRT Pune and
its Subsequent Disposal such as passing on to the IDBI/SASF and to any third party, if any.
Reply of Public Information Officer (PIO):
Since DRT was a court, there was already a provision in law for taking inspection, asking certified copies,
etc. The requisite information could be obtained by following due process of law. The Appellant was
requested to apply under RDDBI Act for inspection and to obtain the required information.
Note: There appear to be various communications between the Appellant and the PIO regarding the
applicability of the RTI Act to the Respondent- public authority and the requisite fees for First Appeal.
Grounds for First Appeal:
No information was provided by the PIO.
Page 1 of 4
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
However on perusal of the documents received by the Commission, it appears that the First Appeal was
returned by the FAA vide letter dated 19/10/2010 on account of procedural inadequacies.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO and no order passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing held on September 16, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Madhav Balwant Karmakar via video conference from NIC Studio – Pune;
Respondent: Mr. K. R. Joshi, PIO & Section Officer via video conference from NIC Studio – Pune.
The PIO has denied the information on the basis that information must be sought under the DRT Rules.
The PIO relied on the decision of the Commission in Ajay v. CPIO, Debts Recovery Tribunal
CIC/SM/A/2009/000990+1506 dated 05/05/2010 in support of his contention. On the other hand, the
Appellant has contended that as per the DRT Rules, only litigants can obtain information. Since he was
not a litigant in the relevant matter, he would not be able to obtain the information. The Appellant relied
on the Commission’s decision in R. S. Misra v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India
CIC/SM/A/2011/000237/SG/12351 dated 11/05/2011 in support of his argument. The PIO stated that
even non- litigants can obtain information under the DRT Rules.
The order was reserved at the hearing held on 16/09/2011.
Decision announced on 20 September 2011:
Based on the contentions of the parties, the main issue which arises for determination before this Bench is
where there are methods of obtaining information from a public authority in existence before the RTI Act,
can a citizen insist on obtaining the information under the RTI Act.
The right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens of India. This has been clearly recognised
by the Supreme Court of India in several decisions and subsequently, codified by the Parliament in 2005.
The RTI Act was enacted with the spirit of ensuring transparency and access to information giving
citizens the right to information. It lays down the substantive right to information of the citizens and the
practical mechanism to enforce the said right. Section 3 of the RTI Act lays down that subject to the
provisions of the RTI Act, all citizens shall have the right to information. The RTI Act is a crisp
legislation comprising of 31 Sections, which confer upon citizens, the right to information accessible
under the RTI Act, which is held by or under the control of a public authority. The scheme of the RTI Act
stipulates inter alia that information sought shall be provided within the prescribed period, formulation of
a proper appellate mechanism and invoking of stringent penalty where the PIO fails to provide the
information within the mandated period without reasonable cause. The RTI Act is premised on disclosure
being the norm, and refusal, the exception. It is legally established that information requested for under
the RTI Act may be exempted from disclosure in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 only and no other
exemptions can be claimed while rejecting a demand for disclosure.
Further, Section 22 of the RTI Act expressly provides that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other
law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI
Act. In other words, where there is any inconsistency in a law as regards furnishing of information, such
law shall be superseded by the RTI Act. Insertion of a non- obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act
was a conscious choice of the Parliament to safeguard the citizens’ fundamental right to information from
Page 2 of 4
convoluted interpretations of other laws adopted by public authorities to deny information. The presence
of Section 22 of the RTI Act simplifies the process of implementing the right to information both for
citizens as well the PIO; citizens may seek to enforce their fundamental right to information by simply
invoking the provisions of the RTI Act.
Given the above, two scenarios may be envisaged:
1. An earlier law/ rule whose provisions pertain to furnishing of information and is consistent
with the RTI Act: Since there is no inconsistency between the law/ rule and the provisions of the RTI
Act, the citizen is at liberty to choose whether she will seek information in accordance with the said
law/ rule or under the RTI Act. If the PIO has received a request for information under the RTI Act,
the information shall be provided to the citizen as per the provisions of the RTI Act and any denial of
the same must be in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only; and
2. An earlier law/ rule whose provisions pertain to furnishing of information but is inconsistent
with the RTI Act: Where there is inconsistency between the law/ rule and the RTI Act in terms of
access to information, then Section 22 of the RTI Act shall override the said law/ rule and the PIO
would be required to furnish the information as per the RTI Act only.
The DRT Rules as well as the RTI Act coexist and therefore, it is for the citizen to determine which route
she would prefer for obtaining the information. The right to information available to the citizens under the
RTI Act cannot be denied where such citizen chooses to exercise such right, as has been done by the PIO
in the instant case. The Commission would like to highlight that just as the DRT Rules put in place by the
relevant authority are not abrogated, the RTI Act passed by the Parliament also cannot be suspended. If
the PIO has received a request for information under the RTI Act, the information shall be provided to the
applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act and any denial of the same must be in accordance with
Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only. The Commission has noted that the PIO has rejected the request for
information under the RTI Act without taking recourse to Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, which is
clearly against the statutory mandate. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that the RTI Act, at no place,
stipulates that in the event there is consistency between an earlier law/rule and the RTI Act, the citizen
shall have to seek information under the former. In the absence of such a provision, there is no
requirement to read in such an interpretation to the RTI Act.
At this juncture, the Commission would like to mention certain decisions of the Supreme Court of India in
CIT v. A. Raman & Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC), which was upheld in CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.
[1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) and subsequently in UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), where
Shah J., observed as follows:
“… Avoiding of tax liability by so arranging commercial affairs that charge of tax is
distributed is not prohibited. A tax payer may resort to a device to divert the income before it
accrues or arises to him. Effectiveness of the device depends not upon considerations of
morality, but on the operation of the Income Tax Act. Legislative injunction in taxing statutes
may not, except on peril of penalty, be violated, but it may be lawfully circumvented…”
(Emphasis Added)
Therefore, even when the State may lose revenue, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that an individual
tax payer has the liberty to arrange her commercial affairs in order to reduce her tax liability, so long as
such arrangement is within the operation of tax legislation(s). Drawing an analogy, it certainly stands to
reason that a citizen should be able to decide on the method most convenient and expedient by which she
would obtain information. In view of the reasons enumerated above, the decision cited by the PIO in Ajay
v. CPIO, Debts Recovery Tribunal CIC/SM/A/2009/000990+1506 dated 05/05/2010 is per incuriam
Page 3 of 4
inasmuch as it was rendered in ignorance of a rule having the force of law laid down by the Supreme
Court of India and by reading in an interpretation to the RTI Act which was hitherto not stipulated by the
Parliament. Given the same, the said decision is not binding on this Bench. It is also important to mention
that no legal basis has been given by the Information Commissioner for arriving at his conclusion.
The Appeal is allowed. The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as per records to the
Appellant before 20 October 2011, subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DIS)
Page 4 of 4