CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Adjunct to Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01205 dated 24-9-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Vijay Pal Singh
Respondent: Supreme Court of India (SCI)
ORDER
In our order on adjunct to this appeal appeal dated 9.3.2009 (wherein the
respondent has been mentioned in the title as Supreme Court of India which was
respondent in the original appeal before us) we had directed as follows:
“Insofar as Jt. Registrar (Estt) PIO, Delhi High Court, New Delhi is
concerned, it appears that he has no submission justifying the
failure to respond to the application transferred to him by the CPIO,
Supreme Court of India. He has therefore rendered himself liable
for the full penalty of Rs 25,000/-.Shri Kalam Singh, Registrar, Delhi High Court is directed to
recover this amount from Shri P. S. Chaggar, Jt. Registrar,
(Estt.) / PIO either directly or through deduction from his salary in
rd
installments not exceeding Rs 5,000/- per month commencing 3
April 2009. He will remit the same to Pay & Accounts Officer,
Central Administrative Tribunal, C-1, Hutments, Dalhousie Road,
New Delhi-110011 under intimation to Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar,
Deputy Secretary and Joint Registrar of this Commission.”This order had arisen on the basis of our decision of 20.1.2009 in which
we have taken the following decision:-“Inasmuch as the matter pertains to the High Court of Delhi and
MCD, the Commission has decided to admit this appeal as
complaint petition u/s 18 (1) (e) of the said Act and hereby directs
the CPIOs of Delhi High Court and MCD to respond to the request
for information from Shri Vijay al Singh within 15 working days from
the date of receipt of this decision.“CPIOs (i) Jt. Registrar (Establishment)/PIO, Delhi High Court, New
Delhi and (ii) PIO/Commissioner (MCD), Town Hall, Delhi are
further directed to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 250/- per
day from 30.8.’07, the date when the information fell due to the date
when the information is actually supplied, not exceeding Rs.25,1
000/- should not be imposed on each CPIO under Section 20(1) of
the RTI Act. The CPIOs may in the alternative give their written
th
submissions on or before 15 February, 2009 or in the alternative
appear before us in person on 18.2.’09 at 5.00 pm “However, since there was no representative of the High Court of Delhi
present in the hearing on 18.2.2009 our order quoted above has been passed. In
response to this order we have received an application on behalf of High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi for recall of our decision notice dated 9.3.2009. In this
petition Shri Rajiv Bansal Learned Counsel for the High Court has submitted as
follows:-“9. The Public Information Officer of the Delhi High Court sent
his written submissions dated 11th February, 2009 to the
learned Commission. The same was sent to the Commission
through Speed Post on 12.2.2009. the postal article bore
no. ED 408411263 IN. A copy of the written submissions
was also posted on 12th February, 2009 to the appellant Shri
Vijay Pal Singh at his recorded address. A copy of the
written submissions along with a copy of the postal receipts
is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-3.10. The postal article directed to the learned Commission bore
the correct address and it has not been received back till
date. It is, therefore, deemed to have been received by the
learned Commission in the normal course on or around 14th
February 2009. The Delhi High Court vide its letter dated
16th March, 2009 has in fact applied to the Post Master at
the Delhi High Court Post Office to furnish a certificate of
delivery of the said postal article. The reply is still awaited.
Be as it may, as submitted hereinabove a copy of the written
submissions was sent by the Public Information Officer of
the Delhi High Court to the appellant on 12th February, 2009
and the postal article was received by the appellant on 14th
February 2009 that is prior to the date of hearing of the
captioned matter by the learned Commission.A copy of the report from the website of the Postal
Authorities regarding delivery of the postal article addressed
to the appellant on 14th February, 2009 is annexed here to
as ANNEXURE A-4.11. Assuming for the sake of assumption, the learned
Commission had not received the written submissions of the2
Delhi High Court before the hearing of the matter on 18th
February, 2009, it was incumbent upon the appellant Sh.
Vijay Pal Singh to bring to the notice of the learned
Commission the factor of service of the written submissions
of the Delhi High Court on him. This appears not to have
been done by the appellant Shri Vijay Pal Singh. The
conduct of the appellant has been completely dishonest
which disentitles him to any relief from the learned
Commission.”In emphasis of the above this petition also submits as follows:-
“It may kindly be noted that the appellant Shri Vijay Pal
Singh did not make any application to the applicant High
Court of Delhi under the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (the Act for short). As a matter of fact,
he had moved an application dated 6th July, 2007 before the
CPIO, Supreme Court of India.The CPIO, Supreme Court of India under cover of his letter
dated 6th July 2007 forwarded the application of Shri Vijay
Pal Singh to the PIO, Delhi High Court. The application was
received by the PIO, Delhi High Court on 18th July, 2007.
From a bare perusal of the application forwarded by the
CPIO, Supreme Court of India, it was apparent that the
information sought by the appellant vide his application
dated 6th July 2007 is not specific and ambiguous.”Together with this statement the representation attaches a number of
documents in its support including a copy of the response of Shri P. S. Chaggar,
PIO High Court of Delhi dated 11.2.2009 addressed to the Jt. Registrar, CIC in
which he has again laid stress on what he concludes is the dishonesty of the
appellant Shri Vijay Pal Singh as below:-“The appellant has, however, concealed the fact that when the
application preferred by the appellant with the Supreme Court of
India was forwarded by the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to the
High Court, the APIO of this Court, vide his letter dated 28.7.2007
(copy enclosed) has specifically asked the appellant as to what
information he wanted from the Delhi High court. 1 He was also
asked to deposit the deficient fee of Rs. 40/- (Rs. Forty only) in
terms of Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006.”1
Underlined by us for ease of reference
3
A copy of this application on behalf of High Court of Delhi was also sent
to appellant Shri Vijay Pal Singh in whose rejoinder of 21.4.2009 Shri Vijay Pal
Singh has reiterated the following observations:-“The PIO were directed to submit the written submission before
15.2.2009 or appear in person on 18.2.2009 before Hon’ble CIC
vide order dated 20.1.2009 but no response was given by
respondent, therefore, I am not satisfied with the reply of Shri Rajiv
Bansal, Advocate Delhi High Court dated 25.3.2009 please
consider.”
Shri Vijay Pal Singh, however, has not addressed the substance of the
response particularly the allegations regarding his own conduct in the matter but
has only expressed his dissatisfaction with the reply of Shri Rajiv Bansal,
Advocate, Delhi High Court dated 25.3.2009. From the above, two facts now
emerge – (1) that appellant Shri Vijay Pal Singh has failed to inform this
Commission of the response received from the Delhi High Court of 28.7.07 and
(2) The Delhi High Court had responded to the Show Cause Notice of this
Commission issued in pursuance of decision of 28.1.08, which does not appear
to have been received in time, leading to the decision of 9.3.09. It might also be
noted that the personal appearance was offered only as alternative to submission
of a written statementThe Point (1) above is not on relevance at this stage because the decision
of 9.3.09 has been taken on the basis of perceived failure to respond to our
Show Cause Notice of 28.1.09 to the Jt. Registrar (Estt.) / PIO Delhi High Court.
It now appears that this was an error of fact. On this ground, therefore, the
decision of 9.3.09 inasmuch as it imposes penalty on the Jt. Registrar (Estt)
/ PIO Delhi High Court is withdrawn.
Although the High Court of Delhi has sought a hearing in the matter, in
light of our now being satisfied with the4 stand of both parties, no further hearing
serve any purpose. Besides, we find that the High Court of Delhi has responded
to appellant Shri Vijay Pal Singh in its letter of 28.7.’07 seeking clarification as
4
underlined by us in the response of Shri Chaggar Jt Registrar quoted above, still
not responded to by appellant Shri Vijay Pal Singh. If Shri Vijay Pal Singh is not
satisfied with the response of High Court of Delhi to his RTI application he is free
to move an appeal under sub-section (1) of section 19 before the First Appellate
Authority Shri Kalam Singh, Registrar (Establishment), High Court of Delhi, Sher
Shah Road, New Delhi-110003, an option that he has not thus far exhausted.
Announced in open chamber on this first day of May, 2009. Notice of this
decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
01.5.2009
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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
01.5.2009
5