Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000404
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
D- Wing, 2nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000404
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
Appellant : Shri Santosh Jaiman
Respondents : Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice,
Department of Legal Affairs, Implementation Cell, New
Delhi
Date of Hearing : 16/06/2011
BACKGROUND
OF THE CASE:
1. The present matter was scheduled for hearing before the Commission on
16/06/2011 at 1445 hours. The Appellant, Shri Santosh Jaiman was present
in person. The Respondent Ministry was represented by Shri Nirmal Singh,
CPIO, Shri O.P. Bangre (DLA & CAPIO) and Shri Jagdish Kumar, Section
Officer who were present during the said hearing.
2. The Appellant vide her RTI Application dated 02/12/2010 had sought
certain information about one Shri Nathmal Sharma, registered as Notary
(Reg. No: 310 dated 20/12/1989) under the Notaries Act, 1952. The
information pertains to (1) the Application (along with complete annexures)
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000404
filed by Shri Nathmal Sharma for obtaining the authorization certificate for
practice under the Notaries Act; (2) letter of appointment and letter of proof
of occupation issued by the Respondent Ministry in regard to the said
Application; (3) specimens of Shri Nathmal Sharma’s signature and official
seal as submitted to the Respondent Ministry; (4) copy of various
Applications (along with complete annexures) filed by Shri Nathmal Sharma
subsequently at the expiry of every 5 (five) years to the Respondent Ministry
for renewal of his certificate of practice as a Notary; and (5) specimens of
Shri Nathmal Sharma’s signature and official seal as submitted to the
Respondent Ministry at the time of each application of renewal.
3. The CPIO vide his Order dated 31/12/2010 had denied the information on
Question Nos. (1) and (4) by invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act. On
Question No. (2), it was held that there were no letters as such; however the
copies of certain letters forwarding the Certificates of Practice for the years
1989, 1996 and 2002 respectively were provided to the Appellant. On
Question Nos. (3) and (5), the CPIO held that no specimen signatures and
seal of Shri Nathmal Sharma were available in the Notary Cell and that at
the time of renewal of his Certificate of practice, Shri Nathmal Sharma had
merely made a simple request for renewal and had not submitted any seal or
signature with the Notary Cell.
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000404
4. The FAA of the Respondent Ministry had simply upheld the said Order of
the CPIO vide its own Order dated 25/01/2011. Aggrieved by the same, the
Appellant has preferred second appeal dated 07/02/2011 before the
Commission under the RTI Act.
DECISION NOTICE:
5. The Commission has carefully perused through the material placed on
record, the legal authorities relied upon by the Appellant vide his written
submissions and has considered the submissions made by all the parties
present during the scheduled hearing.
6. The overall information sought by the Appellant through his RTI
Application largely pertains to one Shri Nathmal Sharma whose registration
no: as a Notary under the Notaries Act has also been produced before us by
the Appellant. The Applications referred to in Question Nos. (1) and (4)
were submitted by Shri Nathmal Sharma to the Respondent Ministry and in
the present appeal, they clearly constitute Third-Party Information under
Section 11 of the RTI Act. However, it is the case of the Appellant that the
Respondent Ministry did not act in conformity with the requirements
prescribed under Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act. This is alleged on the ground
that the Respondent Ministry never gave a written notice inviting the Third
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000404
Party (i.e. Shri Nathmal Sharma) to make submissions in writing or orally,
regarding whether such information should be disclosed or not.
7. There are 3 (three) pre-requisites for Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act to come
into operation. Firstly, there must be some information related to Third-
Party which the CPIO intends to disclose; Secondly, such information must
have been treated as confidential by that Third-Party; and Thirdly, before
proceeding to provide such information, the CPIO must give written notice
to such Third-Party to make oral or written submissions as to whether such
information may be disclosed or not.
8. Now clearly, if the CPIO of the Respondent Ministry ‘intended to disclose’
the information sought under Question Nos. (1) and (4) of the RTI
Application, he was there onwards under a statutory duty to give an
opportunity of being heard to the Third Party (i.e. Shri Nathmal Sharma) in
this regard. But it appears that the CPIO never intended to disclose the said
information in the first place.
9. The CPIO in the present case has not given a written notice under Section 11
(1) of the RTI Act to the Third-Party, i.e. Shri Nathmal Sharma and has
straight away denied information to the Appellant. It is still the stand of the
CPIO before the Commission that he does not intend to disclose the said
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000404
information. Thus, clearly the CPIO never intended to furnish such
information in the first place and thus, didn’t consider it necessary to give
written notice to Shri Nathmal Sharma. The limited extent to which the
CPIO has erred is that he has not been careful enough to invoke the proper
provision under the RTI Act while denying information. However, such
error is not a gross one and lack of lucidity or clarity in interpreting the RTI
Act cannot account for malafide or ill motive on the part of the CPIO.
10. It appears to the Commission that such an error in interpretation of law can
be corrected at this appellate stage by understanding the underlying intention
of the CPIO’s Order. Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act prohibits disclosure of
information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which
has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the CPIO or the
FAA, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies
the disclosure of such information. It is not difficult to assimilate that the
CPIO of the Respondent while denying information under Question Nos. (1)
and (4) as ‘third party information’ was implicitly referring to Section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act. The CPIO should have been more careful and vigilant in
expressly invoking Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act rather than to deny
information under Section 11 of the RTI Act.
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000404
11. Thus, it now poses the question before the Commission as to whether the
disclosure of information as sought under Question Nos. (1) and (4) of the
RTI Application is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act or not.
The answer to this question lies in the affirmative for the following reasons.
12. The procedure for filing an Application for appointment as a Notary has
been prescribed under Rule 4 of the Notaries Rules, 1956. The Application
has to be made in the form of a Memorial whose format is enlaid in Form-I
and Form-II of the Notaries Rules. The Memorial contains information such
as Applicant’s Name, Father’s name, DOB, Category (Gen/SC/ST/OBC),
Address (Off. and Res.), Telephone, Fax, E-mail, educational qualifications,
Income Tax Assessee status, Bar Enrollment Number, Intended area of
practice as a Notary, Date of joining Government service and date of
retirement, post held at the time of retirement, signature inter alia.
13. The Commission is of the view that the disclosure of such information
which relates to personal information of a Third Party (i.e. Shri Nathmal
Sharma), has no relationship to any public activity or interest, and would
cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of Shri Nathmal Sharma. In any
case, under Section 4 (1) of the Notaries Act, the Central Government and
every State Government shall maintain, in such form as may be prescribed, a
Register of the notaries appointed by that Government, who are entitled to
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000404
practice as such under the Notaries Act. Under Section 4 (2) of the Notaries
Act, every such Register shall include the following particulars about the
notary whose name is entered therein, namely:-
(a) his full name, date of birth, residential and professional
address;
(b) the date on which his name is entered in the Register;
(c) his qualifications; and
(d) any other particulars which may be prescribed.
The Commission sees no reason why the information sought under Question
Nos. (1) and (4) shall at all be provided under the RTI Act especially when
the Notaries Act itself prescribes the maintenance of a Register containing
relevant particulars of an appointed Notary. Thus, the Applications (along
with annexures) for obtaining fresh Certificate of practice as a Notary or for
obtaining renewal thereof cannot be disclosed under Section 8 (1) (j) of the
RTI Act.
14. With respect to Question No. (2) of the RTI Application, the Respondent
Ministry has submitted that there is no letter of appointment or letter of
proof of occupation as such with respect to registered Notaries. There is
merit in this submission when viewed in light of Rule 8 of Notaries Rules
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000404
which is titled as ‘Appointment of a Notary’. As per Rules 8 (1) and 8 (2) of
the said Rules, the appropriate Government has to pass requisite Order while
rejecting or allowing an Application for appointment of any person as a
Notary and has to communicate the same to the Applicant. As per Rule 8(4)
of the said Rules, where the application is allowed, the appropriate
Government shall appoint the applicant as a notary and direct his name to
be entered in the Register of Notaries maintained by that Government
under Section 4 of the Act and issue to him a certificate on payment of
prescribed fees authorizing him to practice as a notary for a period of five
years from the date on which the certificate is issued to him.
15. Thus, there are no letter of appointment and letter of proof of occupation
issued by the Respondent Ministry as such when a Notary is appointed. The
only statutory obligation on the Government is to pass an Order on the
Application and to maintain the Register containing particulars of thereby
appointed Notaries as prescribed by Section 4 of the Notaries Act.
16. The Respondent Ministry neither holds nor maintains any such information
as sought under Question No. (2) of the RTI Application. Thus, the reply of
the CPIO is upheld.
17. The Commission now proceeds to Question Nos. (3) and (5) of the RTI
Application. According to Section 7 of the Notaries Act, every notary shall
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000404
have and use, as occasion may arise, a seal of such form and design as may
be prescribed. As per Rule 12 of the Notaries Rules, every notary shall use a
plain circular seal of a diameter of 5 cm bearing his name, the name of the
areas within which he has been appointed to exercise his functions, the
registration number and the circumscription “NOTARY”, and the name of
the Government which appointed him.
18. There is no mandate on the Respondent Ministry under the Notaries Act or
the Notaries Rules to obtain or call for the official seal of the Notary to be
submitted – either at the time of fresh application or at the time of renewal of
his certificate – with the Notary Cell of the Respondent Ministry. The
signatures submitted by the Applicant at the time of making an Application
for obtaining certificate of practice are nevertheless Third-Party Information
and are exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. This has already
been discussed above while dealing with Question Nos. (1) and (4) of the
RTI Application in the foregoing paragraphs and need not be repeated for
the sake of brevity.
19. Now, Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules deals with renewal of certificates of
practice. As per the said rule, the certificate of practice issued under Rule 8
(4) may be renewed for a further period of five years on payment of
prescribed fee. An application for renewal of Certificate of Practice shall be
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000404
submitted to the appropriate Government before three months from the date
of expiry of its period of validity. Under Section 5 (2) of the Notaries Act,
the Government appointing the notary may on receipt of an application and
the prescribed fee, renew the certificate of practice of any notary for a period
of five years at a time.
20. Thus clearly again, there is no requirement of submitting the specimen of
official seal or signatures even at the time of renewal of certificate of
practice by an appointed notary. Hence, the reply of the CPIO to Question
Nos. (3) and (5) of the RTI Application is also upheld.
21. With the above observations and findings, the present Appeal is dismissed.
Sushma Singh
Information Commissioner
04.08.2011
Authenticated True Copies
K.K. Sharma
OSD & Deputy Registrar
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000404
Name & Address of Parties:
Sh. Santosh Jaiman,
4354/7, Ist Floor, Subhash Lane,
Varun Path, Mansarover, Jaipur – 302 001
The CPIO/PIO,
Ministry of Law & Justice,
Department of Legal Affairs,
Implementation Cell, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi
The Appellate Authority & Joint Secretary,
Ministry of Law & Justice,
Department of Legal Affairs, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi