CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opp. Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110 067.
Tel.: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000676/3391
Appeal No. CIC/ SG/A/2009/000676
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr.Rakesh Agarwal,
B-24, Vikram Nagar,
New Delhi-110002.
Respondent : Mr. K.S. Rawat, PIO,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Administration Branch I,
Office of the District & Session Judge,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110001.
RTI application filed on : 06/12/2008
PIO replied : 24/12/2008
First Appeal filed on : 20/12/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 19/01/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 26/03/2009
Information sought:
1. Month-wise information on collection of fines imposed by the courts of Spl.
M.M s on Commercial passenger autorikshaws for the period from January to
December 2008 in the following format:
Month M.M. Room No. Court Amount collected
2. Which authority and into which account such money is deposited after
collection?
3. How is this money utilized / spent?
4. Inspection of all registers, challans, records, receipts, etc, that pertain to
disposal of challans in all courts of Spl. M.M.s (Traffic), for the following
period.
10th and 11th October 2008. If 11th was a holiday, then make it 9th
10th and 11th November 2008.
10th and 11th December 2008.
The Appellant further stated that at the time of inspection, he would like to take copies of
certain documents after paying fee. The copies may be provided immediately or sent to
the Appellant later.
Reply of PIO:
Information was called from the Cashier, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi under section 5(4),
RTI Act. The PIO enclosed letter date 13/12/2008 sent by Senior Accounts Officer, O/O
District & Sessions Judge, Delhi which stated:
1. In reply to query no 1 it is not possible for Cash Branch to provide information as
the fine is deposited in collective form and not as per individual Vehicles.
2. In reply to query no. 2 it is submitted that the collection of fine is deposited in
Govt. Account through State Bank of India, Tis Hazari, Delhi under Account
Head No. 070 Administration of Justice.
3. In reply to query no. 3 it is not possible say how Govt. utilizes/spends the money.
The PIO also stated that as regard to query no. 4 the Appellant was requested to inspect
the registers, challans and records of the court or take copies of documents with the
permissions of Ld. Presiding Officer.
Grounds for First Appeal:
PIO’s reply is unsatisfactory.
Inspection has been permitted subject to the permission of the concerned Presiding
Officer.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The FAA dismissed the appeal as the Appellant was to seek permission of the concerned
Presiding Officer because it is the presiding officer and / or his staff who is the custodian
of the record and the PIO has nothing to do with that record.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Query 1- PIO should have provided what information was available with him instead of
denying the information.
Query 2- PIO should confirm that the money is deposited into the account by all courts of
Spl. M.M.s and not just the ones located in particular districts.
Query 3- Denial of information
Query 4- PIO cannot shift responsibility to provide information to anyone else. FAA’s
order is erred.
No opportunity of hearing was given to the Appellant by the FAA
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Agarwal
Respondent : Mr. K.S. Rawat, PIO
The PIO has not given information regarding query 1 since his contention is that the
information is voluminous and it is not available in the format sought by the Appellant.
The Appellant is willing to do an inspection which should have been offered by the PIO
in the first place.
The Appellant sought inspection of records relating to “registers, challans, records,
receipts, etc, that pertain to disposal of challans in all courts of Spl. M.M.s (Traffic), for
the following period:
– 10th and 11th October 2008. If 11th was a holiday, then make it 9th
– 10th and 11th November 2008.
– 10th and 11th December 2008.”
The PIO had stated “As regard to query no. 4 you are requested to inspect the registers,
challans and records of the court or take copies of documents with the permissions of Ld.
Presiding Officer.”
The PIO states before the Commission that he is unable to offer inspection of records
“because I have written that the permission of the Presiding Officer needs to be obtained
by the Appellant because court is functioning there may be some problem or some
adjourned matter before the court while proceedings going on; and secondly, the PIO is
junior to the judicial officer and in this way I can not direct the Presiding Officer. In the
present case the applicant has not visited the court for inspection and there is no instance
that the Presiding Officer had refused for the inspection. Then it may be for my
consideration whether I should take the next step to take the sanction of the head of the
department.”
The Appellant says “that the records of which inspection was sought are kept in the
custody of the registry which is not the function of the Presiding Officer of a court.
Therefore the contention of the PIO that inspection would cause obstruction to judicial
proceedings is misplaced.”
According to Section 5(4) the PIO may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or
she considers it necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties, i.e. to provide the
information. The onus therefore lies on the PIO to approach any officer of the court as he
considers necessary to procure the information that the Appellant is seeking. If the
Appellant is exercising his right to information under the RTI Act, then he is within his
statutory rights to only approach persons designated as PIO or APIO. The Appellant is
the sovereign Citizen of India exercising his fundamental right, and no authority can ask
him to seek permissions from anybody. The purpose of putting in place Section 5(4) is to
ensure that applicants for information do not have to run from pillar to post to access
information to which they are rightfully entitled to under the RTI Act. In the present case,
to ask the Appellant to apply for permission from the Presiding Officer of the Court is in
clear contradiction to the spirit and word of the law. The Commission considers the PIO’s
reply to Query No. 4 as an instance of shirking responsibility and takes strong exception
to such actions.
In his written submission submitted to the Commission, the PIO states – “I have granted
permission to inspection subject to permission of the courts so that the applicant may not
threat or harass the officials.” The PIO’s belief that he is in a position to give
‘permission’ is completely misplaced. The RTI Act statutorily enshrines a citizen’s
fundamental right to information. Persons designated as PIOs and APIOs under the RTI
Act are only facilitators or enablers in the process by which citizens can enjoy this right
effectively.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed. The Commission directs the PIO to facilitate the
inspection by the appellant before 15 June 2009. Copies of records which he
wants will also be provided.
The PIO’s action clearly amounts to malafidely denying the request for information. The
PIO is therefore, asked to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed and
disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act. He
will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 18 June 2009 at 4.30
p.m. along with his written submissions. The PIO will also submit proof of having given
the inspection to the Appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
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
22 May 2009.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(AK)