Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000761SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 26 May 2011
Date of decision : 26 May 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri P D Gupta
27/1, 2nd Floor, Nangia Park,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi - 110 007.
Name of the Public Authority : The Central Public Information Officer,
High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi.
The Appellant was present along with Shri R.B. Bansal & Shri Bipul
Kumar, Advocates.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Rajiv Bansal, Advocate,
(ii) Shri Manoj Chawla, AOJ,
(iii) Shri Vinay Sharma, Sr. Judl. Asstt.
(iv) Shri Sudhir Sachdeva, Sr. Judl. Asstt.
(v) Shri Dibyaranjan Gouda, Jr. Judl. Asstt.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their
submissions.
2. The Appellant had sought a number of information including one
regarding the number of cases in which orders had been reserved but were not
CIC/WB/A/2009/000761SM
passed even after a lapse of two months or more. The CPIO had provided
some information or comments against each of the queries. The Appellate
Authority had endorsed the information provided by the CPIO.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that the only item of
information he would now press for was regarding the number of cases in which
orders had been reserved but not passed even after the lapse of two months or
more. On behalf of the Respondent, it was argued that this information was not
being maintained in the first place. Secondly, it was also argued that the
information regarding such cases was being furnished to the Chief Justice of
the High Court in a sealed cover which the office of the Chief Justice held in a
fiduciary capacity and, therefore, such information could not be disclosed as
exempt under Section 8 (1) (e) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
4. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the parties, we
tend to disagree with the above contention of the Respondents. All that the
Appellant wants to know is about the number of cases reserved for orders in
which no order has been passed even after a lapse of two months or more.
This is plain factual information. As admitted by the CPIO himself in his reply,
there is a practice followed in the High Court under which the Court Masters are
supposed to compile such lists to be furnished to the Chief Justice of the High
Court every month. Thus, this information should be available not only with the
Court Masters but also in the office of the Chief Justice. Even if it is admitted
that the office of the Chief Justice may not be compiling and collating such data
received from the Court Masters, it should suffice if photocopies of the reports
furnished by the Court Masters are provided to the Appellant. Besides, the
disclosure of such information would serve a larger public interest as the
litigating public would come to know about the time being taken by the High
CIC/WB/A/2009/000761SM
Court in finally disposing of the cases. It is wellknown that the pendency of
cases before the courts is one of the major concerns among the people.
5. In the light of the above, we would like to direct the CPIO to locate the
relevant records, such as the reports furnished by the Court Masters to the
Chief Justice of the High Court through the Registrar every month and to
provide photocopies of those reports containing the lists of cases relevant to the
RTI request of the Appellant within 15 working days from the receipt of this
order. Since the Appellant has not indicated a timeframe for this information
and the Respondents pointed out that Honourable Justice Sikri had been in the
High Court for a very long time and compiling information about the reserved
orders passed by him or benches in which he had been a member judge would
be impossible and would disproportionately divert the resources of the public
authority, we think that it would suffice if this information is provided for a period
of two years only preceding the date of the RTI application. However, if a
cumulative list of such pending reserved orders in the High Court is being
compiled anywhere in the High Court including the office of the Chief Justice, it
would also suffice to provide a copy of that to the Appellant.
6. The case is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
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.
CIC/WB/A/2009/000761SM
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/WB/A/2009/000761SM