CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01687 dated 3.10.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Ganga Dutt Gupta
Respondent - High Court of Delhi
Facts
:
By an application of 6.2.2007 Mr.Ganga Dutt Gupta of G. T. Road, Sarai
Pipal Thalla, Delhi applied to PIO, Jt. Secretary, Law & Judicial, NCT Delhi
seeking the following information:
“Information is sought about application dated 4.8.2006 (Copy
annexed) as referred vide its letter dated 7.9.2006 (copy annexed)
what action taken against Shri D. C. Anand, Presiding Officer,
Labour Court No. 1 as per complaint dated 13.5.2005, referred.”
To this he received a response of 11.5.07 from Shri A. K. Mahajan, PIO,
High Court of Delhi, as follows:
“Your complaint made against Shri D. C. Anand, Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Delhi has been considered and directed to be filed
on 20.9.2006.”
Aggrieved by this response Mr. Gupta moved a first appeal before the First
Appellate Authority Delhi High Court on 25.6.2007 on the following grounds:
“The information was required to be supplied with in one month but
the said in complete information has been supplied by your honor
after a lapse of time more than three months.”
Shri Kalam Singh, Appellate Authority, however, in his order of 21.8.2007
found as follows:
“I have considered the appeal. So far information sought by him
vide application dated 6.2.2007, the same has already been
supplied to him. The request that he should be supplied a copy o
order dated 20.9.06, does not survive when decision on his
complaint has been conveyed to him.
So far delay part is concerned, I agree with the appellant that there
is delay in supplying information to the appellant. Therefore, I
direct the Public Information Officer to ensure that in future
applications seeking information under Right to Information Act are1
disposed of within the period allowed by the Act and in case he
requires more time then due intimation should be given to the
applicants. However, in this case, I do not find any justification to
impose costs on the Public Information Officer.”
The appellant’s prayer before us in his second appeal is as follows:
“Rules farmed vide notification dated 11/8/2006 being over ride
the said RTI Act 2005 be declared null and void, and Arbitrary
and its Fee charged as detailed above, may be refunded with
costs of Rs. 1,000/- for serious violation of the said Act 2005.
Damages and costs may be imposed for supplying delayed/ in
complete information by more than three months to the tune of
Rs. 5,000/- and copies of order, as asked form may be supplied
to the appellant with the above said costs and damages to the
appellant. Any other relief as considered fit and proper may
also be awarded to the appellant as verified by him vide his
affidavit annexed and application for condonation of delay in
filing the said appeal.”
The issue before us is clearly whether the rule under which the information
had been refused to appellant Mr. Gupta are inconsistent with the RTI Act 2005
which would bring them within the mischief of Sec. 22, which reads as follows:
Section 22
The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923,
and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument
having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
In the present case the prayer of appellant is the rules applied are only to
be read as instructions and not as substance of the law. However, it is not clear
as to in which case the information has been refused on the basis of rules
because on his request for the action taken report against Shri D. C. Anand with
the copy of orders passed thereon, if any, applicant had been informed in the
initial response of PIO that the complaint had been filed, which is in fact a report
on the action taken.
DECISION NOTICE
Sec. 6 of the RTI Act is clear in that it provides all persons seeking
information, only subject to being citizens of India as per sec. 3, the right to make
2
a request in writing or by electronic means, specifying the particulars of the
information sought by him or her. Under sec. 7(1) the only ground on which such
information can be refused is “for any of the reasons specified in sec. 8 & 9”. In
this case there has been no refusal of information. But it is a fact that appellant
has sought orders passed on the complaint and no copy of such orders have
been supplied. There is moreover an allegation of violation of the time limits
mandated u/s 7(1), only referred to but not discussed in the orders of appellate
authority Shri Kalam Singh
In this case, therefore, we hereby direct as follows:
1. That the response to the application be provided in the form in which it
was sought as required under Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. This will
mean that a copy of the order by which the complaint was directed to be
filed be supplied to appellant Shri Gupta within ten working days of the
date of issue of this Decision Notice
2. That Shri Kalam Singh, appellate authority will enquire into the reasons
why information that became due on 06.3.’07 was supplied only on
11.5.’07, and if found at fault obtain the explanation of the defaulting
official, and submit a copy of his report together with his recommendation
on the subject to Shri PKP Shreyaskar Jt Registrar, Central Information
Commission for further action, if any by us u/s 20 of the RTI Act 2005, by
or before 20.2.’09
Announced in the open Court on this 29th day of January, 2009.. Notice of
this decision be given free of cost to the parties
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
29.1.2009
3
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
29.1.2009
4