In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SM/A/2011/000118
Date of hearing : July 15, 2011
Date of Decision : July 20, 2011
Parties:
Complainant
Mr. Ravinder Kumar Malik
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Malik,
R/o F243/124C,
Katwaria Sarai,
Behind Mother Dairy, Main Road,
New Delhi - 110 016
Respondent
Central Information Commission,
August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.
Represented by : Ms. Anita Gpta : Additional Secretary
Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar: Dy. Secretary cum CPIO
Information Commissioner(s) : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
Decision Notice
In the instant case, the Commission directs the PIO to provide the information on legal size papers as
sought by the Appellant, upon payment of the requisite fees as per the prescribed Rules.
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SM/A/2011/000118
ORDER
Background
1. The instant case arises out of an RTI application dated 02.06.2010 whereby the Applicant sought information in the
form of inspection and Certified copies of documents comprising 584 pages out of the files pertaining to various
cases which he had filed before the Central Information Commission. The certified copies of documents were
sought in legal size pages pertaining to eight cases in total before the CIC. The Applicant was informed by a
letter dated 29.06.2010 from the Central Information Commission, that the cases in question were transferred
from the registry of the Information Commissioner (Mrs Sushma Singh) to that of the Chief Information
Commissioner as per the request of the Applicant vide letter dated 11.06.2010.
13. The CPIO in his response dated 09.07.2010 requested the Applicant to visit the Central Information
Commission on any mutually convenient date and time for inspection of the files. He further apprised the
Applicant that documents as sought under points C and G of the RTI application had not been received till then
by the registry of the Chief Information Commissioner and that they had been called for immediately. The PIO
denied supply of photocopies of the petition submitted by the Applicant himself, stating that since the Applicant
himself was the originator of the document concerned, the same is neither held nor under the control of the
Commission as defined under Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act 2005. The PIO reasoned that information lay with the
Applicant and that he already had complete control over the said information.
3. Being thus denied the information, the Applicant preferred a First Appeal contending that the PIO can deny the
information only under Section 8 & 9 of the RTI Act 2005 with specific reasons for such denial. Moreover the Applicant
also challenged the argument of the PIO that since the information originated from the Applicant therefore the same
would not be available as information under Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act 2005 from the Central Information Commission.
The Appellate Authority decided the Appeal by the order dated 08.09.2010 relying upon another decision of the First
Appellate Authority in the decision no. CIC/AA/A/2009/143 dated 25.03.2010 as quoted by the Appellant and directed the
PIO to provide certified copies of the documents generated by the Commission and attested copies of remaining
documents which are on file, in legal size paper considering the request of the Appellant. The Appellant was allowed
inspection by the AA, and any extract was allowed to be provided as per the prescribed ‘Fee Cost Rules’.
4. The Appellant filed an application dated 17.09.2010 seeking modification of the AA’s decision in as much as he
claimed that the PIO be directed to provide complete information free of cost in terms of Section 7 (6) since the PIO had
failed to provide information within 30 days. Meanwhile, the PIO also sought review of the decision of the AA by his
application dated 29.09.2010 stating that in some of the case files of the Appellant, the documents, petitions etc. had
been submitted in A4 size papers while some documents were on legal size papers. While providing legal size
photocopies of those documents which had been submitted in legal size pages was not opposed by the PIO, the supply of
copies on legal size paper of the documents which were submitted in A4 size pages were sought to be reviewed stating
that the same would result in creation of information other than in the form as prescribed under law. While elaborating his
contention, the CPIO relied upon Sections 2(f) and 7(9) of the RT Act. He pointed out that “information” means any
material in any form…….. and that , “An information should ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought” while
contending that what the Appellant is seeking is information in a certain specified “format” with respect to the legal size
of the paper and not in the ‘form’ (physical appearance) in which the information is existing with the Public Authority. The
PIO therefore was ready to provide information in the same form as held by the Public Authority (CIC) on payment of
requisite fees. The Appellate Authority rejected the applications received from the PIO as well as the Appellant stating
that neither the Appellate Authority has the power to review nor a factual mistake had occurred to give rise to such a
review.
13. Feeling aggrieved by the order/s of the Public Authority, the Appellant approached the Central Information
Commission by filing the instant appeal on 15.12.2010 reiterating each sequential detail leading to the filing of
the Second Appeal.
Decision
6. During the hearing, each of the parties reiterated their contentions as already submitted in the form of
documents. Upon enquiry, the Appellant contended that he has sought the copies of documents for filing the
same in a case pending before the High Court of Delhi, where only legal size papers are admissible for placing
any document on Court records. He pleaded that the information be provided to him in this form. He also
reiterated that the CPIO had obstructed the supply of information although the same is available with CIC.
7. The PIO argued that the Appellant being the originator of the document, “held” the information and “was in
control of the information” as understood under Section 2 (j) of the Act, therefore, the information was justly
denied to him(Appellant).
8. The Commission noted from the CPIO’s oral submission during the hearing that as far as he(CPIO) is
concerned this position ( as mentioned in para 7 hereinabove), has already been settled in the decision of this
Commission in File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00411 dated 5.12.06 and that he had therefore denied the information
while relying on the same. The Commission finds no inadequacy in this argument of the CPIO and therefore
holds this to be a reasonable cause for denial of information by him in the first instance. It was also noted that
the Appellate Authority had ordered supply of information and had even turned down a request for review of
her Order by the CPIO. The undersigned does not wish to interfere with this decision of the AA, who has
decided to disclose the information since it is she who is closest to the information .
9. The CPIO’s argument with respect to the supply of information in the same form as is available in the case files
of the CIC (ie. in the form as submitted by the Appellant, as given in para 4 hereinabove) is also found to be
justified. Going by the argument of the CPIO, supply of information which has been submitted by the Appellant
in A4 size, back to the Appellant in legalsize can indeed be termed as creation of new information since the
‘form’ would have been changed.
10. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, and in view of the delay which has
already taken place as also the decision of the First Appellate Authority to provide the information, the
Commission takes a lenient view of the matter and has decided while adopting a benevolent approach and in
keeping with the spirit of this welfare legislation that all the information be provided to the Appellant, on legal
size papers, as sought by him. (The Commission feels it is apt to mention at this juncture that as per the CPIO
the Appellant has adopted the submitting of A4 size pages before the Commission and seeking legal size
copies of the same from the Commission as a practice. It is clarified by the Commission that appeals in this
regard (seeking legal size copies of documents) from this Appellant will not be entertained henceforth, for
reasons explained in para 4 above.
11. In so far as the argument of the Appellant about the information to be provided free of cost is concerned, it is
observed that the Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act 2005 only deals with the disposal of the RTI application, and that it
does not relate to any time frame for providing the information in the case of one or a series of transfers of the
RTI application. This aspect has been touched upon in Section 7(3) of the RTI Act which talks of providing
details of further fees to the Appellant after “a decision is taken to provide the information” .
12. In the instant case a decision to provide the information has been taken by the Appellate Authority in her order
dated 08.09.2010 and the PIO as per direction of the AA was agreeable to provide the information upon
payment of the requisite cost of Rs. 2 per page as is evident from the PIO’s review application dated 29.09.2010,
endorsed to the Appellant. Hence, the information is directed to be provided on legal size papers, in the instant
case only to the Appellant ,as sought by him, upon payment of the requisite fees as per the prescribed Rules,
which will be intimated to the Appellant within 10 days of receipt of this Order by the CPIO and the information to
be provided within 15 days of receipt of the additional fees from the Appellant.
13. The case is disposed off on the above terms.
Decision announced in the Chamber of the Information Commissioner, Ms. Annapurna Dixit on 20 July, 2011.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Malik
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Malik,
R/o F243/124C,
Katwaria Sarai,
Behind Mother Dairy, Main Road,
New Delhi – 110 016
2. Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar.
The CPIO,
Central Information Commission,
August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.
3. Ms. Anita Gupta
Appellate Authority
Central Information Commission,
August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.
4. Officer in Charge, NIC