HAND BOOK FOR Trg. Materials on RTI Act, 2005 ON RTI Act.pdf · 2013-05-08 · Handling of RTI Application with Check-list and exercise 37 - 38 7. Open House Session with questions

1

For official use only

HAND BOOK FOR

TRAINING ON

R.T.I. ACT, 2005

Administrative Training Institute Government of West Bengal

FC-Block, Sector-III, Salt Lake City

Kolkata – 700106 Website : http://www.atiwb.gov.in

2

ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING INSTITUTE GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL

2-DAYs

TRAINING MODULE ON “RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005”

Day Session Time Topic One I 10.15 a.m.-10.45 a.m. Inauguration & Course briefing

II 10.45 a.m.-12.15 p.m. Objectives, Definations, Request for

information & disposal (Sec. 1-7 except-4)

12.15 p.m.-12.30 p.m. TEA BREAK III 12.30 p.m.-1.45 p.m. Voluntary disclosure (Sec. 4)

1.45 p.m.-2.45 p.m. LUNCH BREAK

IV 2.45 p.m.-4.00 p.m. Exemptions from disclosure and Third party information (Sec. 8 – 11)

4.00 p.m.-4.15 p.m. TEA BREAK V 4.15 p.m.-5.30 p.m. W.B. R.T.I Rules, 2006

Two I 10.15 a.m.-10.45 a.m. Re-capitulation of first day

II 10.45 a.m.-12.15 p.m. Constitution of State Information Commission, Appeal, Penalties, Protection & Monitoring (Sec. 15-25)

12.15 p.m.-12.30 p.m. TEA BREAK III 12.30 p.m.- 1.45 p.m. Handling of RTI Application with Check-list and

exercise

1.45 p.m.-2.45 p.m. LUNCH BREAK IV 2.45 p.m.–4.00 p.m. Open House Session (with questions and

answers )

4.00 p.m.-4.15 p.m. TEA BREAK V 5.00 p.m.–5.30 p.m. Feedback, Evaluation & Distribution of

Certificates

[ COURSE DIRECTOR ]

3

ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING INSTITUTE GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL

3-DAYs

TRAINING MODULE ON “RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005”

Day Session Time Topic One I 10.15 a.m.-10.45 a.m. Inauguration & Course briefing

II 10.45 a.m.-12.15 p.m. Right to Information Act, 2005 – its background, evolution & objectives

12.15 p.m.–12.30 a.m. TEA BREAK III 12.30 p.m. - 1.45 p.m. Definations, Request for information &

disposal (Sec. 1-7 except-4)

1.45 p.m. - 2.45 p.m. LUNCH BREAK IV 2.45 p.m.–4.00 p.m. Voluntary Disclosure (Sec. 4)

4.00 p.m. – 4.15 p.m. TEA BREAK V 4.15 p.m. – 5.30 p.m. W.B. R.T.I Rules, 2006

Two I 10.15 a.m.-10.45 a.m. Re-capitulation of first day II 10.45 a.m.-12.15 p.m. Exemptions from disclosure and Third party

information (Sec. 8 – 11) 12.15 p.m.–12.30 p.m. TEA BREAK

III 12.30 p.m.- 1.45 p.m. Constitution of State Information Commission, Appeal, Penalties, Protection & Monitoring (Sec. 15-25)

1.45 p.m. - 2.45 p.m. LUNCH BREAK IV 2.45 p.m.–4.00 p.m. Handling of RTI Application with Check-list

and exercise (Contd.) 4.00 p.m. – 4.15 p.m. TEA BREAK

V 4.15 p.m.–5.30 p.m. Handling of RTI Application with Check-list and exercise

Three I 10.15 a.m.-10.45 a.m. Re-capitulation of second day II 10.45 a.m.-12.15 p.m. Recent case rulings on RTI Act, 2005 12.15 p.m.–12.30 p.m. TEA BREAK

III 12.30 p.m.- 1.45 p.m. Open House Session (with questions and answers)

1.45 p.m. - 2.45 p.m. LUNCH BREAK IV 2.45 p.m.–4.00 p.m. Feedback, Evaluation & Distribution of

Certificates

[ COURSE DIRECTOR ]

4

M A T E R I A L S FOR

TRAINING ON R.T.I. ACT, 2005

Contents

Sl. No.

Topics Pages

1. Objectives, Definations, Request for information & disposal (Sec. 1-7 except Sec. 4)

5 - 16

2. Voluntary disclosure (Sec. 4)

17 - 18

3. Exemptions from disclosure and Third party information (Sec. 8 – 11)

19 - 25

4. W.B. RTI Rules, 2006

26 - 28

5. Constitution of State Information Commission, Appeal, Penalties, Protection & Monitoring (Sec. 15 – 25)

29 - 36

6. Handling of RTI Application with Check-list and exercise

37 - 38

7. Open House Session with questions and answers

39 - 57

8. (a) Evaluation of knowledge on RTI Act, 2005 (b) Model Evaluation Questions & Answers

58 - 69

9. Additional Study Papers 70 - 111 1. Guide on Right to Information Act, 2005 (by DoPT) 70 - 88

2. Important CIC Decisions regarding Exemptions from Disclosure of Information under RTI Act, 2005

88 - 111

3. Important Decisions of various High Courts

112

5

Objectives, Definations, Request for information & disposal

(Sec. 1 - 7 except-4) Extract from the Act

CHAPTER I

Preliminary 1. (1) This Act may be called the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 5, sections 12, 13, 15,16, 24 , 27 and 28 shall come into force at once, and the remaining provisions of this Act shall come into force on the one hundred and twentieth day of its enactment.

2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) "appropriate Government" means in relation to a public authority which is established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly—

(i) by the Central Government or the Union territory administration, the Central Government;

(ii) by the State Government, the State Government;

(b) "Central Information Commission" means the Central Information Commission constituted under sub-section (1) of section 12;

(c) "Central Public Information Officer" means the Central Public Information Officer designated under sub-section (1) and includes a Central Assistant Public Information Officer designated as such under sub-section (2) of section 5;

(d) “Chief Information Commissioner” and “Information Commissioner” mean the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner appointed under sub-section (3) of section 12;

(e) "competent authority" means—

(i) the Speaker in the case of the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of a State or a Union territory having such Assembly and the Chairman in the case of the Council of States or Legislative Council of a State;

(ii) the Chief Justice of India in the case of the Supreme Court;

(iii) the Chief Justice of the High Court in the case of a High Court;

(iv) the President or the Governor, as the case may be, in the case of other authorities established or constituted by or under the Constitution;

(v) the administrator appointed under article 239 of the Constitution;

6

(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;

(g) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act by the appropriate Government or the competent authority, as the case may be;

(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted—

(a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament;

(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any—

(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;

(i) "record" includes—

(a) any document, manuscript and file;

(b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;

(c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and

(d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device;

(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to—

i) inspection of work, documents, records;

ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;

iii) taking certified samples of material;

iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;

(k) "State Information Commission" means the State Information Commission constituted under sub-section (1) of section 15;

(l) "State Chief Information Commissioner" and "State Information Commissioner" mean the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioner appointed under sub-section (3) of section 15;

7

(m) "State Public Information Officer" means the State Public Information Officer designated under sub-section (1) and includes a State Assistant Public Information Officer designated as such under sub-section (2) of section 5;

(n) "third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority.

CHAPTER II

Right to information and obligations of public authorities 3. Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.

xxxxxxx

5(1) Every public authority shall, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, designate as many officers as the Central Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers, as the case may be, in all administrative units or offices under it as may be necessary to provide information to persons requesting for the information under this Act.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), every public authority shall designate an officer, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, at each sub-divisional level or other sub-district level as a Central Assistant Public Information Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, to receive the applications for information or appeals under this Act for forwarding the same forthwith to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be:

Provided that where an application for information or appeal is given to a Central Assistant Public Information Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, a period of five days shall be added in computing the period for response specified under sub-section (1) of section 7.

(3) Every Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case

may be, shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.

(4) The Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers it necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties.

(5) Any officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central Public

8

Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

6(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to—

(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;

(b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her: Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing.

(2) An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.

(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,—

(i) which is held by another public authority; or

(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.

7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:

Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.

(2) If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may

be, fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have refused the request.

(3) Where a decision is taken to provide the information on payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the information, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall send an intimation to the person making the request, giving—

9

(a) the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as determined by him, together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount in accordance with fee prescribed under sub-section (1), requesting him to deposit that fees, and the period intervening between the despatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days referred to in that sub-section;

(b) information concerning his or her right with respect to review the decision as to the amount of fees charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the appellate authority, time limit, process and any other forms.

(4) Where access to the record or a part thereof is required to be provided under this Act and the person to whom access is to be provided is sensorily disabled, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall provide assistance to enable access to the information, including providing such assistance as may be appropriate for the inspection.

(5) Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed:

Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1).

(7) Before taking any decision under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall take into consideration the representation made by a third party under section 11.

(8) Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall communicate to the person making the request,—

(i) the reasons for such rejection; (ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and

(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.

(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.

--ooOoo—

10

HANDOUT

Right to Information Act, 2005 (Section 1 – 7)

Introduction

The Right to Information Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2004. It was passed by both houses of Parliament in May 2005. The assent of the President was received on 15th June and the Act was notified in The Gazette of India on 21st June. The Right to Information Act will become operational by the 12th October, 2005 after the completion of 120 days from the date of Presidential assent. The Freedom of Information Act passed by Parliament in 2002 has been repealed.

The Right to Information Act (RTI Act) will cover all levels of government – Centre, State, district and local self governing bodies like Panchayats and Municipal bodies. It will also cover non- governmental organisations – i.e. NGOs, VOs and other private bodies – that are financed substantially with public funds provided by the government. This means every citizen has the right to put in an application requesting information or copies of records held by these bodies and such information should be given by the concerned body. The citizens’ right to information is not explicitly mentioned in the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution. But in more than 10 cases the Supreme Court of India has declared that the fundamental right to life and liberty [Art. 21] and the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression [Art. 19(1)] include every citizen’s fundamental right to access information. Parliament passed the RTI Act to enable all citizens to use their fundamental right to access information from public bodies.

The main objectives of the RTI Act are –

• To promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and

• to set up a practical regime for giving citizens access to information that is under the control of public authorities.

Definition of Informatin

• Information means material in any form including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and

• information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.

Definition of Record

• any document, manuscript or file; • any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;

11

• any reproduction of image or images embodied in such micro-film (whether enlarged or not); and

• any other material produced by a computer or any other device.

Definition of Right to Information

Right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to –

• inspection of work, documents, records; • taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; • taking certified samples of material; • obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or

in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.

One of the guiding principles of the RTI Act is – “information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”

The Three Level Regime for Assessing Information At the first level of the regime, every public authority has designated officers for receiving applications (also called ‘information requests’) from citizens.

At the second level, every public authority has designated senior officers to look into those cases where citizens’ requests for information have been refused. If citizens do not get the requested information or are unsatisfied with the information they have received, under this law, they have the right to send an appeal to the Departmental Appellate Authority (DAA) designated within the concerned public authority.

At the third level, an independent State Information Commission (SIC) has been set up to look into those cases where citizens are unsatisfied with the decision of the DAA. The SIC also has the powers and responsibility to monitor compliance of public authorities to this Act and submit an annual report to the State Legislature.

Role of Courts According to the RTI Act the decision of the SIC is binding on all parties. Courts are barred from inquiring into the decision of the SIC. But it must be remembered that this law gives effect to a fundamental right of citizens. According to the Constitution, the High Courts (Art. 224) and the Supreme Court (Art. 32) have the power to look into any matter relating to the fundamental rights of citizens. Technically, a citizen has the right to approach the High Court or the Supreme Court if he/she is not satisfied with the decision of the SIC.

Role of the Public Information Officer Under the RTI Act, Public Information Officers (PIOs) should be designated in all administrative units of every public authority in order to receive information requests from citizens. They also have the responsibility and duty to provide the requested information within 30 days. The PIO is the main point person whom citizens will

12

contact for exercising their right to information under this law. In public authorities controlled by the State Government they are called State Public Information Officers (SPIOs).

Please remember – – as a PIO you may not have access to all records in your office. You have the

right to seek assistance from any other officer (senior or subordinate) if you consider it necessary for the proper discharge of your duties under this Act.

– Any officer whose assistance you seek has a duty to render all such assistance. If that officer refuses assistance as a result of which you are unable to provide information to the citizen then he/she is liable for penalty and disciplinary action.

The Assistant Public Information Officer The RTI Act requires that the State Government designate Assistant Public Information Officers at the sub-divisional or sub-district level.

Please remember – – the Assistant Public Information Officer is not an assistant to the PIO.

In public authorities controlled by State Governments they are called State Assistant Public Information Officers (SAPIOs). Under the law the SAPIOs will act like a Post Office. Every SAPIO has the duty and responsibility to receive information requests from citizens and forward them to the PIO of the concerned public authority that is likely to have the information being sought by the applicant.

Please remember – – It is the responsibility of the Public Information Officer to give information

to the requestor. (A SAPIO is not responsible for giving information to the requestor.)

Duties and Responsibilities of the State Public Information Officer

RECEIVE INFORMATION REQUESTS (APPLICATIONS) FROM CITIZENS SEEKING INFORMATION.

Please remember –

• citizens can submit applications personally or by post/courier or through electronic means (such as email etc.) in English, or Hindi or the official language of your area;

• citizens are not required to give reasons for requesting information. Please do not demand an explanation from the requestor as to why he/she needs that information;

• refusal to accept an application from the citizen without reasonable cause is an offence under the law. The State Information Commission may impose a

13

fine of Rs. 250/- per day till the application is received up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000/- and also recommend disciplinary action.

PROCESS APPLICATIONS FROM CITIZENS RECEIVED THROUGH SAPIOS.

Please remember –

• citizens have the right to send information requests to the SAPIO. The SAPIO is duty bound to forward such applications to the PIO of the public authority that controls the information requested.

ASSIST A PERSON MAKING AN ORAL REQUEST TO REDUCE IT INTO WRITING

Please remember –

• if a requestor is unable to submit a written request because of some physical disability or due the fact that he/she cannot read or write please render reasonable assistance to reduce the oral request for information in writing. This is a requirement under the law.

IF INFORMATION REQUESTED IS FULLY OR PARTIALLY HELD BY ANOTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY OR THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPLICATION IS MORE CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE FUNCTIONS OF ANOTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY TRANSFER THE APPLICATION OR THE RELEVANT PART OF THE APPLICATION TO SUCH PUBLIC AUTHORITY. INFORM THE APPLICANT OF SUCH TRANSFER IN WRITING IMMEDIATELY.

Please remember –

• if you receive a request for information that is not available with your office but is likely to be available with another office or public authority, it is your duty to transfer that request to the concerned public authority. The PIO directory published by the State Government may be used for this purpose.

(If you advise the requestor to approach the concerned public authority he/she may treat this as your refusal to accept the application and send a complaint to the DAA or the SIC. This could lead to litigation which can be avoided by transferring the application to the relevant PIO.)

• You should transfer the application to the PIO concerned as soon as possible and in no case later than five days.

• You should inform the applicant about the transfer of the application in writing immediately. There is no grace period stipulated in the law for communicating this transfer to the requestor.

COLLECT APPLICATION FEES PRESCRIBED IF THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ALREADY SUBMITTED PROOF OF PAYMENT OF THE SAME AND ISSUE RECEIPT

14

Please remember –

• You have a duty to collect application fees as may be prescribed by the Government. If the applicant does not submit proof of payment of prescribed fees (by bank draft, postal order, court fee stamp or any other mode of payment prescribed by the Government) along with the application, you may collect the prescribed fees in cash;

• citizens belonging to the BPL category are exempted from paying application fees. A copy of the BPL/Antyodaya ration card may be attached to claim waiver of the application fee;

• please issue a receipt in the prescribed format for every complete application.

ISSUE WRITTEN ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION WITH REASONS AND DETAILS OF APPEAL PROCESS AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY IF REQUESTED INFORMATION FALLS WITHIN ONE OR MORE CATEGORIES OF EXEMPTIONS UNDER SEC. 8 AND ALSO DOES NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IF IT IS RELEASED.

Please remember –

• You are required to communicate to the applicant in writing –

o the reason/s for rejecting the request; o the period within which the applicant may appeal against the rejection; o the particulars of the appellate authority.

• the law specifies 11 categories of information that may not be disclosed to the requestor. Sec. 8 applies to categories of information and not categories of records. (Sec. 9 applies to cases where release of information may infringe upon the copyright of any person other than the State) A record may contain both exempt and non-exempt information. Non-exempt information contained in such records may be disclosed upon request.

• No other exemption contained in any other law including the Official Secrets Act and the Indian Evidence Act, or rules, orders or procedures prescribed by any public authority will take precedence over the operation of the RTI Act.

• furthermore, if the public interest in disclosing exempt information weighs more than the harm to the protected interests then such information may be released.

• if the requestor appeals against your rejection order he/she is not required to justify why such information is being requested. Under the law the burden of proving why such information cannot be given is placed on the PIO. You will have to prove before the appellate authority that your rejection order was based on reasons valid under this law. If the Information Commission finds your justification unreasonable you are liable to fine and

15

also disciplinary action. So please be very cautious while rejecting an information request.

OR

PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION. IF INFORMATION CONCERNS THE LIFE AND LIBERTY OF A PERSON THEN PROVIDE SUCH INFORMATION WITHIN 48 HOURS.

Please remember –

• if the information requested is not covered by any of the exemptions you should ordinarily provide it within thirty days;

• if the requested information relates to the life and liberty of a person (Art. 21 of the Constitution) then you have a duty to privde such information within 48 hours.

• ordinarily, if the requested information is given by a third party which treats it as confidential then ten extra days are allowed to seek its submission on whether such information may be disclosed (see below). This does not apply to cases involving the life and liberty of a person. Such information must be given within 48 hours because of the sense of urgency involved.

IF DECISION IS TAKEN TO PROVIDE INFORMATION THEN INFORM THE APPLICANT IN WRITING ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL FEES CHARGED AS COST OF PROVIDING THE INFORMATION.

Please remember –

• If you decide to provide the requested information you should immediately inform the applicant in writing about the additional fees he/she is required to pay as cost of providing the information. This additional fee must be calculated at the rate prescribed by the Government. The time taken between dispatch of this intimation and the actual payment of fees will not be included while calculating the period of thirty days;

• if the information requested is to be provided in electronic or printed format you may charge additional fees at the rate prescribed by the Government. You will be required to inform the applicant about this additional fee in writing. The time taken between dispatch of this intimation and the actual payment of fees will not be included while calculating the period of thirty days;

• BPL applicants are exempted from paying additional fees for securing the requested information;

• if for some reason the requested information is not provided within the deadline the requestor has a right to receive such information free of cost.

16

ADDITIONAL FEES SO CHARGED SHOULD BE REASONABLE. ALSO GIVE DETAILS OF CALCULATIONS MADE AND INFORM THE APPLICANT OF HIS/HER RIGHT TO FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITIONAL FEE.

Please remember –

• the Government will prescribe the rates at which you may calculate the additional fees towards cost of providing information. The law requires that such fees be reasonable;

• you have a duty to inform the applicant in writing the details of how the additional fee were calculated and how the amount was arrived at;

• you have a duty to inform the applicant in writing that he/she has a right to demand from the DAA and/or the SIC a review of the additional fees charged by you as cost of providing the requested information. You are required to inform the applicant in writing – the particulars of the appellate authority, the time limit and the process of appeal and any other forms that may be prescribed in this context.

AS FAR AS POSSIBLE PROVIDE INFORMATION IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

Please remember –

• the applicant may request information that might have to be extracted or compiled from one or more public records or documents. Furthermore the applicant may request that the information be provided in a specific format. Ordinarily, in such cases you are required to provide information in the format sought by the applicant unless such extraction or compilation –

o will require spending disproportionately large amount of time, money or human power resources or

o will adversely affect the safety or preservation of the relevant record/s.

17

Voluntary disclosure

(Sec. 4)

Extract from the Act

4(1) Every public authority shall—

(a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;

(b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,—

(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;

(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees;

(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;

(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;

(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;

(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;

(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;

(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;

(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;

(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;

(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;

(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;

(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;

(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;

18

(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;

(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;

(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;

(c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;

(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.

(2) It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.

(3) For the purposes of sub-section (1), every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public.

(4) All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed.

Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), "disseminated" means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority.

--ooOoo--

19

Exemptions from disclosure and Third party information (Sec. 8 – 11)


8 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,—

(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;

(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;

(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;

(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:

Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:

Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;

(j) 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 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

20

(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under secton 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section:

Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act.

9 Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request forinformation where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.

10 (1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.

(2) Where access is granted to a part of the record under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall give a notice to the applicant, informing—

(a) that only part of the record requested, after severance of the record containing information which is exempt from disclosure, is being provided;

(b) the reasons for the decision, including any findings on any material question of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based;

(c) the name and designation of the person giving the decision;

(d) the details of the fees calculated by him or her and the amount of fee which the applicant is required to deposit; and

(e) his or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding non-disclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, time limit, process and any other form of access.

11 (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:

Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance

21

any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. (2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public

Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.

(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.

--ooOoo--

HANDOUT

Right to Information Act, 2005 (Section 8-11)

IF INFORMATION REQUESTED RELATES TO ONE OR MORE OF THE EXEMPTIONS IN SEC. 8 YOU MAY SEVER THOSE PORTIONS OF THE RECORD (CONTAINING SUCH INFORMATION) THAT ARE EXEMPT AND PROVIDE THE NON EXEMPT PORTIONS.

Please remember –

• a record may contain both exempt and non-exempt information. Non-exempt information contained in such records may be disclosed upon request;

• you may sever the exempt portions in the manner prescribed by Government while providing access to the non-exempt portions of the record;

• While communicating the decision to grant partial access to information or record/s you are required to give in writing -

22

o reasons for rejecting the request including any factual or material findings on which your rejection is based and the materials on which those findings are themselves based;

o name and designation of the person giving the decision for granting partial access;

o details of fees calculated by him/her and the amount of fee the applicant is required to deposit;

o the applicant’s right to seek review of this decision regarding non-disclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged, the form of access provided and the particulars of the appellate authority (DAA and SIC as the case may be) and

o time limits within which the applicant may seek a review of the decision, the process of seeking review and any forms that are prescribed for this purpose.

PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO THE APPLICANT WHO IS SENSORILY DISABLED (BLINDNESS OR SOME OTHER FORM OF SENSORY DISABILITY) TO ACCESS THE REQUESTED INFORMATION INCLUDING APPROPRIATE ASSISTANCE FOR INSPECTION.

Please remember –

• if the requestor is sensorily disabled (blindness or some other similar disability) you are required to provide reasonable assistance to such persons to accessing the entire record or non-exempt portions (as the case may be). This includes providing reasonable assistance for inspection.

IF INFORMATION REQUESTED WAS GIVEN TO THE PIO’S PUBLIC AUTHORITY BY A THIRD PARTY WHO TREATED IT AS CONFIDENTIAL THEN DISPATCH WRITTEN NOTICE TO SUCH THIRD PARTY SEEKING SUBMISSIONS (IF ANY) WHETHER SUCH INFORMATION SHOULD BE DISCLOSED TO THE REQUESTOR.

Please remember –

• A third party can be anybody other than the applicant and the public authority to which the information request has been sent. This includes any individual, private body and any other public authority;

• You are required to serve a notice to the concerned third party if the information requested by the applicant was given to your public authority and treated as confidential by that third party;

• this notice should be served on the third party within 5 days of receiving the application. You should also inform the third party through this notice of the particulars of the appellate authority, details of the appeal process and the time limit for filing an appeal if a decision is taken to disclose the information.

23

• The third party is required to make its representation before the PIO within ten days from the date of receiving such notice.

• If the disclosure of information given by third party is more important in the public interest as compared to the harm or injury it may cause to the interests of the third party you should release it to the applicant. However trade or commercial secrets protected by law are exempt from disclosure.

Exemptions covered by Sec. 8 and 9

The RTI Act exempts ten categories of information from disclosure in Sec. 8. But all exemptions are subject to the greater public interest. If public interest in disclosing information outweighs the harm caused to the protected interests then such information should be disclosed by the public authority. Please remember, these exemptions relate to categories of information and not categories of records. Additionally Sec. 9 empowers the PIO to reject an application if disclosure will infringe upon the copyright of a third party other than the State. But this is also subject to the public interest override.

“8(1)(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;

8(1)(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

8(1)(c) information the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;

8(1)(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

8(1)(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

8(1)(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government

8(1)(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

8(1)(h) information which would impede the process of investigations or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

8(1)(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:

24

Provided that the decisions of the council of Ministers, the reasons therefore, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:

Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;

8(1)(j) information which relates to personal information the diclosure 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 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”

Tmakes send sowhetherthe RTI

2, informaan infoconfidenthe thirmake aPIO andsecond such in 3. Aauthorimakes public acannot the infoAct. It ito actio 4. Tkeep ththird pawhen th 5. H

MD

Subject :

The undersiinter depa

ome confidr the recip Act, 2005.

Section 11ation. Accorormation suntial, the Prd party to

an appeal tod if not sat appeal to

nformation u

As defined ity. Readingit clear thaauthority ‘Ydisclose th

ormation anis a statuton.

The Public hese provisiarty informhird party i

Hindi versio

GMinistry Departm

Disclosure

igned is dirartmental cential papeient public. If yes, wha

1 of the Acrding to it, upplied by

PIO, before o make subo the Depaisfied with the concerunless the

in clause (ng of the defat if a publY’ which thhe informatnd without ory requirem

Informatioions of the

mation in gs a public a

on will follo

NO. 8/Governmof Perso

ment of P

OFFICE

e of third par *

rected to saconsultatioers to anotc authority at procedur

ct provides if a Public

y a third ptaking a debmission inrtmental A the decisiorned Inform procedure

n) of Sectiofinition of tlic authorityhat public ation withou following tment, non-c

on Officers e Act in viegeneral andauthority, i

w.

/2/2010ment of onnel, PPersonn

MEMORA

rty informat* * *

ay that the ns. In the ther public can disclore is requir

the procec Informatioparty whichecision to dn the matt

Appellate Auon of the Dmation Com prescribed

on 2 of the he term, ‘thy ‘X’ receivauthority hut consultinthe proceducompliance

and the Few while tad disclosurin particula

D

0-lR India PG & Penel & Tra

North BlDat

ANDUM

tion under th

Governmen process, a

c authorityse such co

red to be fol

edure of dion Officer (h the thir

disclose theter. The thiuthority agaepartmenta

mmission. Td in section

Act, ‘third hird party’ ves some inhas treated ng ‘Y\ the ture prescrie of which m

First Appelaking decisire of the tar.

(K.G. VERDirector, Te

nsions aining

ock, New Dted: the 27

he RTI Act, 2

nt, in a numa public a. A questio

onfidential llowed for d

sclosure of(PIO) intendd party ha

e informatioird party hainst the dal AppellateThe PIO ca 11 is comp

party’ incluand Sectio

nformation as confidethird partybed in Secmay make

llate Authoion, about third party

RMA) ei: 230S21

Delhi-1107th April, 2

2005.

mber of casauthority mon has arispapers unddoing so.

f ‘third pards to discloas treated on shall invhas a rightdecision of te Authority

annot disclopleted.

udes a pubon 11 togeth from anothntial, then

y in respecttion 11 of tthe PIO lia

orities shou disclosure

y informatio

158

25

001 010

ses may sen der

rty’ ose as

vite t to the y, a ose

blic her her ‘X’ t of the

able

uld e of on,

26

W.B. R.T.I Rules, 2006

RTI Rules

Regd No. WB/SC-320 No. Wb/CPS//Raj-11(Part I)/2007

Extraordinary Published by Authority

[KARTIKA – 8] WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006 [SAKA 1927

PART I - Orders and Notifications by the Governor of West Bengal, the High Court, Government Treasury etc.

GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department

Administrative. Reforms Cell.

NOTIFICATION

No. I 57-PAR (AR}~ I0th March, 2006- In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section(1) read with sub- section (2) of Section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of2005), the Governor is pleased hereby to make the following rules, namely :-

Rules

1. Short title and commencement - (1) These rules may be called the West Bengal Right to Information Rules, 2006. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazzate.

2. Definitions:-

(1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(a) "Act" means the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005); (b) “Commission” means the West Bengal Information Commission; (c) “Registrar” means the Registrar of the Commission; (d) “Section” means section of the Act; (e) “State Government” means the Government of West Bengal.

(2) Words and expressions used and not defined in these rules but defined in the Act, shall have the same meanings as respectively assigned to them in the Act.

27

3. Application fee –

An application containing a request in writing to the State Public Information Officer or the State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, made under sub-section (I) of Section 6 for obtaining information, shall be accompanied with a court-fee of rupees ten. 4. 'Fee for providing information -

Save as otherwise provided in the provision to sub-section (5) of Section '7, the State Public Information Officer or the State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall provide Information under sub-section (I), and sub-section (5), of Section 7 upon receipt or a request under Section 6, on payment of a fee of -

(a) rupees two, for each page (in A-4 or A-3 size paper) created or copied; or (b) actual charge or cost price, for a copy in large size paper; or (c) actual cost price, for sample or model; or (d) rupees five for each fifteen minutes or fraction thereof, for inspection of records; or (e) rupees fifty per diskette or floppy, for information provided in the diskette or floppy; or (f) actual charge fixed for publication or rupees two per page of photocopy for extracts there from for information provided in printed form.

5. Contents of appeal to Commission under sub-Section (3) of Section 19 - An appeal to the Commission under sub-section (3) of Section 19, shall contain the following information, namely:-

(a) Name and address of the applicant; (b) Name and address of the State Public Information Officer or the State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who passed the order; (c) Particulars of the order against which the appeal is made including its number and date; (d) Brief facts of the case; (e) Prayer or relief sought for by the appellant; (f) Grounds for such prayer relief; and (g) Verification by the appellant

6. Documents to accompany appeal to Commission under sub-section (3) of Section 19 –[[[[

Every appeal made to the Commission shall be accompanied by the following documents, namely:- (a) the attested true copy of the order against which the appeal is being preferred; (b) the copies of the documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in the appeal; and (c) an index of the documents referred to in the appeal.

7. Procedure in deciding appeal to Commission under sub-section (30 of Section 19 – (1) In deciding the appeal to the commission, the commission shall :-

(a) Hear, oral or written, evidence on oath or on affidavit from the concerned or interested person; (b) Peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof.

28

(c ) Enquire through the authorized, officer for further details or facts; (d) Hear the State Public Information Officer or the State Assistant Public Information Officer or such officer who decided the first appeal mentioned in sub-section (I) of Section 19, as the case may be; (e) Hear the third party if required; and (f) Receive evidence on "affidavits from State Public information Officer or the State Assistant Public Information Officer or such officer who decided the first appeal mentioned in sub-section (I) of Section 19 or from the third party; if any

(2) In deciding the appeal the Commission may ask the appellant to add any other information other than the information included in the contents of the second appeal under rule 5.

8. Service of notice by Commission -- The notice required to be issued under sub-section (9) of Section 19, by the Commission may be served in any of the following modes, namely:-

(a) service by the party itself; (b) service by hand delivery through the process server; (c) service by the registered post with acknowledgement due (d) service through the head of office or the Department;

9. Signing of order –

The order of the Commission pronounced in open proceedings shall be in writing and authenticated by the Registrar of any other officer authorized by the Commission in this behalf.

10. Terms and conditions of officers and other employees of Commission –

The officers and other employees of the Commission shall be placed on deputation from the State Government on the usual terms and conditions

By order of the Governor,

Sd/- Trilochon Singh,Pr. Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal

29

Constitution of State Information Commission,

Appeal, Penalties, Protection & Monitoring (Sec. 15 - 25)


CHAPTER IV

The State Information Commission15 (1) Every State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a body to

be known as the...... (name of the State) Information Commission to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to, it under this Act.

(2) The State Information Commission shall consist of—

(a) the State Chief Information Commissioner, and

(b) such number of State Information Commissioners, not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary.

(3) The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee consisting of—

(i) the Chief Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee;

(ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly; and

(iii) a Cabinet Ministrer to be nominated by the Chief Minister.

Explanation.—For the purposes of removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly has not been recognised as such, the Leader of the single largest group in opposition of the Government in the Legislative Assembly shall be deemed to be the Leader of Opposition.

(4) The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the State Information Commission shall vest in the State Chief Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by the State Information Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the State Information Commission autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act.

(5) The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.

(6) The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall not be a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union territory, as the case may be, or hold any other office of profit or connected with any

30

political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.

(7) The headquarters of the State Information Commission shall be at such place in the State as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify and the State Information Commission may, with the previous approval of the State Government, establish offices at other places in the State.

16 (1) The State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall not be eligible for reappointment:

Provided that no State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office as such after he has attained the age of sixty-five years.

(2) Every State Information Commissioner shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, and shall not be eligible for reappointment as such State Information Commissioner:

Provided that every State Information Commissioner shall, on vacating his office under this sub-section, be eligible for appointment as the State Chief Information Commissioner in the manner specified in sub-section (3) of section 15:

Provided further that where the State Information Commissioner is appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner, his term of office shall not be more than five years in aggregate as the State Information Commissioner and the State Chief Information Commissioner.

(3) The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, shall before he enters upon his office make and subscribe before the Governor or some other person appointed by him in that behalf, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the First Schedule.

(4) The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner may, at any time, by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor, resign from his office:

Provided that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner may be removed in the manner specified under section 17.

(5) The salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of—

(a) the State Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of an Election Commissioner;

(b) the State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government:

Provided that if the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, at the time of his appointment is, in receipt of a pension, other than a disability or wound pension, in respect of any previous service under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, his salary in respect of the service as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall be reduced by the amount of that pension including any portion of pension which was commuted and pension equivalent of other forms of retirement benefits excluding pension equivalent of retirement gratuity:

Provided further that where the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner if, at the time of his appointment is, in receipt of retirement benefits in respect of any previous service rendered in a Corporation established by or under any Central Act or State Act or a Government company owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, his salary in respect of the service as the

31

State Chief Information Commissioner or the State Information Commissioner shall be reduced by the amount of pension equivalent to the retirement benefits:

Provided also that the salaries, allowances and other conditions of service of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall not be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment.

(6) The State Government shall provide the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners with such officers and employees as may be necessary for the efficient performance of their functions under this Act, and the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees appointed for the purpose of this Act shall be such as may be prescribed.

17 (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the Governor on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has on inquiry, reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.

(2) The Governor may suspend from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from attending the office during inquiry, the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under sub-section (1) until the Governor has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Governor may by order remove from office the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner if a State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be,—

(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or

(b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral turpitude; or

(c) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or

(d) is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body; or

(e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner.

(4) If the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in any way, concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of the State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or emoluments arising therefrom otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be guilty of misbehavior.

32

CHAPTER V

Powers and functions of the Information Commissions, appeal and penalties 18 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information

Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,—

(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;

(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;

(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under this Act;

(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;

(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and

(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.

(3) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:—

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;

(b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;

(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;

(e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and

(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.

(4) Notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act of Parliament or State Legislature, as the case may be, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may, during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act, examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the control of

33

the public authority, and no such record may be withheld from it on any grounds.

19 (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:

Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

(2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.

(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:

Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party.

(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.

(6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

(7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding.

(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to—

(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including—

(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form; (ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the

case may be;

(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;

(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management

34

and destruction of records;

(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;

(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4;

(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;

(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;

(d) reject the application.

(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority.

(10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.

20 (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.

CHAPTER VI

Miscellaneous21 No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything

which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule made

35

thereunder.

22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistenttherewith 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.

23 No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order

made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.

24 (1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:

Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:

Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before the State Legislature.

25 (1) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each year, prepare a report on the implementation of the provisions of this Act during that year and forward a copy thereof to the appropriate Government.

(2) Each Ministry or Department shall, in relation to the public authorities within their jurisdiction, collect and provide such information to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, as is required to prepare the report under this section and comply with the requirements concerning the furnishing of

36

that information and keeping of records for the purposes of this section.

(3) Each report shall state in respect of the year to which the report relates,—

(a) the number of requests made to each public authority;

(b) the number of decisions where applicants were not entitled to access to the documents pursuant to the requests, the provisions of this Act under which these decisions were made and the number of times such provisions were invoked;

(c) the number of appeals referred to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, for review, the nature of the appeals and the outcome of the appeals;

(d) particulars of any disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect of the administration of this Act;

(e) the amount of charges collected by each public authority under this Act;

(f) any facts which indicate an effort by the public authorities to administer and implement the spirit and intention of this Act;

(g) recommendations for reform, including recommendations in respect of the particular public authorities, for the development, improvement, modernisation, reform or amendment to this Act or other legislation or common law or any other matter relevant for operationalising the right to access information.

(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, as soon as practicable after the end of each year, cause a copy of the report of the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, before each House of the State Legislature, where there are two Houses, and where there is one House of the State Legislature before that House.

(5) If it appears to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, that the practice of a public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may give to the authority a recommendation specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformity.

37

Handling of RTI Application with Check-list and

exercise Check list for receipt & disposal of RTI applications

S.No Particulars Verification A. Identity of applicant 1. Name 2. Contact details 3. Does the applicant claim to be a person BPL? 4. Is proof of identity and for claim as BPL submitted?

B. Form of application 1. Form of application

• On paper/electronic form

2. Is the application accompanied by prescribed fee?

3. Mode of payment 4. Language used in application

• English • Hindi • Official language of the area

5. Is reply also required in the same language? C. Content of application

1. Whether specific/vague? 2. Whether information asked for falls under the definition

of information u/s 2(f)?

3. Whether information pertains to life or liberty of a person?

4. Whether information asked for is held by or under the control of the public authority? Or is it closely connected to with the functions of another public authority?

5. Whether information destroyed as per the Records retention schedule of your office?

38

6 Whether information pertains to proactive disclosures made made by the public authority

7. If assistance of any other officer in the public authority required to furnish information to citizen?

8. Whether information has been asked to be furnished in a specific form?

9. If providing information in such form would 10. Whether third party provisions are attracted? 11. Whether exemptions u/s 8 & 9 apply? 12. If yes, specify provisions

D. Disposal of application 1. Date of receipt 2. Expected date for disposal 3. Officer whose assistance was sought for gathering

information and other details

4. Date of receipt of information from such officer

5. Date of sending third party notice, if any 6. Date of receiving response from third party 7. Date of intimating applicant for deposit of further fee

for accessing information

8. Date of deposit of fee 9. Date of actual disposal of application

E. Reply furnished to applicant

39

Open House Session

with questions and answers

Some Related FAQs PART-I

Q 1). If information asked for is too big, can it be denied? How much

information can be asked in one application?

Answer. A request cannot be denied / rejected on the ground that information

asked for is too big. A PA may invite the applicant to inspect the records and

specify the information he wants. Information must be provided in the form in

which it is requested for unless it disproportionately diverts the resources of

the public authority. The Act does not put any restrictions on the amount of

information that can be asked for through one application.

Q.2) What if there is a danger of the applicant misusing the documents he

received under the Act?

Answer; _ It has been suggested that the Government devise means to

authenticate documents released under the Act. A PIO may mark every page

with a rubber stamp impression containing the phrase, “Documents released

under RTI Act containing XX pages”. Electronic files may be given in (un-

editable) PDF / TIFF format. This will obviate the need for certifying the

documents separately.

Q.3) What if the applicant mutilates or destroys a record during inspection?

Answer. To start with, A PA would do well to fix particular days of a week for

allowing inspection to all applicants who asked for it. Rules may be made

regarding the procedure of inspecting records under the Act. That said, a PA

must take adequate precautions for preserving the safety of records. In case,

an applicant mutilates or destroys a record during inspection, the PA should,

immediately, lodge a complaint with appropriate authorities.

40

Q.4) If same kind of information is asked by more than one citizen, should it be

made available to all the requesters?

Answer: Yes. It is possible, however, that if such records are digitised as far as

possible and uploaded on the internet to facilitate easy access, and the public

made aware of its availability on the Internet, the number of RTI applications

would be less or would come down post-disclosure-on-the-Internet.

Q.5) Will a PIO be penalised if the superior officer orders him not to release

information to the requester?

Answer: The PIO is an independent authority under the Act. There is no need

for her / him to take the approval of her / his superior for releasing the

requested information. The PIO alone is responsible for any decision taken by

him, whether with the approval of his superior or not. If the IC, concerned,

finds that the PIO has malafidely rejected the request, it is the PIO who will be

penalised and not the superior officer.

Q.6) Should BPL applicants be charged additional fees for providing

information requested by them?

Answer: The ‘RTI Act, 2005’ specifies that no fees need to be charged for ‘Below

the Poverty Line’ applicants either at the time of making an application or while

providing access to information requested by them.

Q.7) Can a PIO transfer an RTI application within the PA?

Answer: A PIO can seek assistance of another officer from within the PA… who

shall render all assistance and shall be a “deemed PIO” as per S. 5 (4) & (5).

However, the ‘RTI Act, 2005’ does not provide for transfer of RTI applications

within the same PA.

Q.8) To what extent should the PIO keep the applicant informed about the

manner in which her / his request is being disposed?

41

Answer: A PIO would do well to keep an applicant informed about key actions

pertaining to the request. To start with if an application is not clear about the

information requirements, the applicant may be informed about it and also be

told that the PIO would provide her / him all reasonable assistance in filing a

proper application. Applications by e-Mails may have to be replied to with an

intimation about the fees to be paid. It has been… suggested that it would be

proper to acknowledge the receipt of applications.

If the PIO decides not to disclose 3rd party information because it is exempted

or because the PIO accepts its submission about not disclosing information,

the candidate should be communicated the rejection of application. If PIO

decides to disclose information, the applicant has to be asked to wait till the

appeals (if applicable) are decided or the time limits for making appeals are

over… If partial information is disclosed, the applicant will have to be,

accordingly, informed about both the above points. Incidentally, 3rd party

should not be given information about the applicant, which can be seen as

personal information. Where an application is transferred to another PA, it

has been suggested that the applicant be informed of such details as: whether

the complete application or appropriate part of it has been transferred; reasons

for transfer; name and contact details of the other PA and the PIO concerned.

Q.9) What is Public Interest?

Answer: The Act does not define ‘public interest’. We may rely on the

interpretation given by the Central IC and the Supreme Court in this regard.

Disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and

accountability in the working of the PA is ‘Public Interest’ [Central IC in one of

its decisions]… …Public interest covers public health, public security, morals,

economic welfare of the community and the objects mentioned in the

Directive Principles of State Policy [Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v

Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & ors AIR 2006 Supreme Court 212]

Note: With these decisions as a reference, a PIO / FAA may still have to closely

examine the issues involved -on a case-by-case basis.

42

Q.10) If a request is received which a PIO cannot understand and needs more

clarity on the particulars of the information sought, what can be do?

Answer: CIC has advised to hold a personal discussion with the requester in

the following Decisions:

“If there was general confusion regarding the kind of information that has been

called for and that could have been supplied, it could have been easily resolved

by a personal sitting between the appellant and the respondents”

[CIC/WB/A/2006/00810-5 July 2006]

“The CPIO and the AA may, however, be well advised that… it is better to call

the petitioner over for a discussion about what precise information he seeks.

…the petitioner had come all the way in appeal to the Commission in spite of

the fact that the PA was willing to share with him all the information which he

had requested. A personal discussion would gave avoided litigation.”

[CIC/AT/A/2006/00157-5 July 2006]

A request for information related to hundreds of 3rd parties is received by a

PIO. It is not practical to give a notice to all of them as required by the S. 11(1).

What can a PIO do?

In a similar case CIC advised,

_ “in view of the fact that the number of third-parties in this case runs to over

800, the FAA [or PIO] may choose to call for hearing certain representatives of

all 3rd parties, selecting them from samples of large, medium and small

investors and, pass a speaking order…” [CIC/AT/A/2007/01554, 30th May

2008]

43

Some Related FAQs PART-II

THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

15. Constitution of State Information Commission

1. Q. How is the State Information Commission constituted ?

A. By a notification constitutes a body to be known as the ………………… (Name of the state) Information Commission.

Q. What is the purpose of the State Information Commission ?

A. To exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to it under this act.

2.Q. Who are the main Commissioners the State Information Commission shall consist of ?

A. The State Information Commission consists of the following commissioners:

(a) the State Chief Information Commissioner, and

(b) such number of State Information Commissioners not exceeding ten.

3.Q. Who is appointing authority of state Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners ?

A. The Governor is the appointing authority on the recommendation of a Committee.

Q. Who are the members of this Committee?

(i) the Chief Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee.

(ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly ; and

(iii) a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister.

Explanation : For the purposes of removal of doubts it is hereby declared that where the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly has not been recognition as such, the leader of the single largest group in opposition of the Government in the Legislative Assembly shall be deemed to be the Leader of the Opposition.

44

4.Q. In whom shall the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the State Information Commission vest?

A. The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the State Information Commission shall vest in the State Chief Information Commissioner.

Q. Who shall assist the State Chief Information Commissioner?

A. The State Information Commissioners shall assist the State Chief Information Commissioner

5.Q. What shall be the requirements for the State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners?

A. As per the following requirements:

(a) They shall be persons of eminence in public life. They must have wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance

(b) He/She should not be a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory.

(c) He/she should not hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.

7. Q. Where shall be the headquarter of the State Information Commission?

A. The headquarters of the State Information Commission shall be at such place in the State as the Stage Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify.

Q. Can they establish offices at other places in the State?

A. Yes, with the previous approval of the State Government the State Information Commission may establish offices at other places in the State.

16. Term of office and conditions of service.

1.Q. What is the term of office of the State Chief Information Commissioner?

A. The State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he attains the age of 65 years.

45

Q. Is he eligible for reappointment?

A. No.

2.Q. What is the term of office of every State Information Commissioner ?

A. Every State Information Commissioner shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he attains the age of 65 years.

Q. Is he eligible for reappointment as Information Officer ?

A. No

Q. On vacating his office is she/he eligible for appointment as the State Information Commissioner?

A. Yes.

Q. What shall be the term of office of the State Information Commissioner who is appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner?

A. In such case his/her term of office shall not be more than five years in aggregate as the State Information Commissioner and the State Chief Information Commissioner.

3.Q. What do the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner do before he/ enters upon his/her office?

A. Before he/she enters upon office his/her make and subscribe before the Governor or some other person appointed by him in that behalf, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the First Schedule.

4.Q. When and how can the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner resign from his office?

A. The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner may, at any time, by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor, resign from his office: Provided that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner may be removed in the manner specified under Section 17.

46

5.Q. What are the salaries and allowances payable to the State Chief Information Commissioner?

A. The salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of State Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of an Election Commissioner.

Q. What are the salaries and allowances payable to the State Information Commissioner?

A. The salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government.

6.Q. What provides the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners with officers and employees for the efficient performance of their functions?

A. The State Government.

Q. How are the salaries and allowances prescribed for such officers and employees?

A. The salaries and allowances are such as prescribed under this Act.

17. Removal of state Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner

1.Q. When and how shall the State Chief Information Commissioner or any State Information Commissioner be removed from his /her office?

A. The State Chief Information Commissioner or any State Information Commissioner can be removed from the office only –

(a) by the order of the Governor on the ground of proved misbehavior , or

(b) incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has, on inquiry, reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or any State Chief Information Commissioner shall be removed.

2.Q. Can the Governor suspend from office the State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner during inquiry?

A. Yes. The Governor may suspend from office the State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner in respect of whom a

47

reference has been made to the Supreme Court under sub-section(1) until the Governor has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme court on such reference.

3.Q. On what ground can the Governor by order remove the State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner from his/her office?

A. The Governor shall by order remove from office the State Chief Information Commissioner or any State Information Commissioner when he/she –

(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or

(b)has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the President, involves moral turpitude or

(c) engages during his/her term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his/her office, or

(d) is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body; or

(e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner.

4.Q. Is the State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner, in any way, concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of the State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or emolument arising therefrom other wide than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, be guilty of misbehavior?

A. Yes.

48

CHAPTER VI

Powers and functions of the information commissioners, appeal and penalties

18. Powers and functions of the information commission

1.Q. What are the duties of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission?

A. The functions of the above Commissions to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,-

(a) Who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer, or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or Senior Officer specified in sub-section (1) of Section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;

(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this act;

(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limits specified under this Act;

(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;

(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and

(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.

2.Q. Is the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission empowered to initiate an inquiry ?

A. The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.

49

3.Q. What are the powers of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission?

A. The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission has the same power as that of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:

(a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compelling them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;

(b) Requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;

(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;

(e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents ; and

(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.

4.Q. Can the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission examine any record which is under the control of the public authority during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act?

A. Yes

19. Appeal

1.Q. Can an aggrieved party prefer an appeal under this Act ?

A. Yes. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal.

Q. To whom the appeal shall be preferred?

A. The aggrieved person can prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, in each public authority:

50

[provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.]

2.Q. Can an appeal be preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer under Section 11 to disclose third party information ?

A. Yes.

Q. Within how many days shall the said appeal by the concerned third party be made from the date of the order?

A. Within thirty days from the date of the order.

3.Q. Shall a second appeal be preferred?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the time limit for second appeal?

A. Second appeal should be filed within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:

[Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.]

4.Q. Who shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to a third party if the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party?

A. The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission.

5.Q. In an appeal, on whom shall lie the onus to prove that a denial of a request is justified ?

A. The onus shall lie on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer who denied the request.

51

6.Q. Within how many days an appeal shall be disposed under sub-section(1) or sub-section (2) ?

A. Within 30 days of the receipt of the appeal [Under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)].

Q. Can the time limit be extended ?

A. Yes. After recording the reason in writing, it can be extended not exceeding a total of 45 days.

7.Q. Is the decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission binding?

A. Yes.

8.Q. What are the powers of the Central Public Information Commission or State Information Commission with regard to its decision ?

A. In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission has the power to –

(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this act, including –

(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;

(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;

(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;

(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;

(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;

(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 4;

(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;

(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this act;

(d) reject the application

52

9.Q. Who shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal to the complainant and the public authority?

A. The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority.

10.Q. Who shall decide the appeal?

A. The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.

20 Penalties

1.Q. What shall be the reason for the penalty imposed upon the Central Public Information Commission or the State Information Commission against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer ?

A. On the following reasons :

(a) decided a case without a reasonable cause.

(b) refused to receive an application for information.

(c) not furnished information within the specified time.

(d) malafidely denied the request for information.

(e) knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information

(f) destroyed information which was the subject matter of the request.

(g) obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.

Q. What shall be the penalty imposed upon the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer ?

A. An amount of Rs. 250/- per day till the application is received or information is furnished.

Q. Can the amount of penalty exceed Rs. 250/- ?

A. Yes, but it shall not exceed Rs. 25,000/-.

Q. Can the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer be punished without providing an opportunity to be heard ?

53

A. No. Before imposing any penalty on him, he should be given an opportunity to be heard.

Q. On whom shall lie the burden of proving?

A. The burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer.

2.Q. What shall be the reason for recommending disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission?

A. On the following reasons:

(a) decided a case without a reasonable cause.

(b) failed to received an application for information.

(c) not furnished information within the specified time.

(d) malafidely denied the request for information.

(e) Knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information

(f) destroyed information which was the subject matter of the request.

(g) obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.

Shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer under the service rules applicable to him.

54

CHAPTER – VI

MISCELLANEOUS

21. Protection of action taken in good faith

Q. Is there any suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule made thereunder ?

A. No.

22. Act to have overriding effect

Q. Can the provisions of this Act have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 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?

A. Yes.

23. Bar of jurisdiction of courts

Q. Can any court entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act?

A. No.

24. Act not to apply to certain organization

1.Q. Does this Act apply to certain organizations established by the Central Government like intelligence and security organizations?

A. No. This Act shall not apply to the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organizations to that Government.

Q. Which is the information not excluded under this sub-section?

A. The information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations are not excluded under this sub-section.

55

[In case of information sought for in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty five days from the date of the receipt of request.]

2.Q. Can the Central Government amend the Schedule to include or omit any organisation?

A. Yes. The Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, can amend the Schedule by including any other intelligence or security organization established by that Government or omitting there from any organization already established therein. On the publication of such notification such organization shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

3.Q. Is every notification issued under sub-section (2) be laid before each House of Parliament?

A. Yes. Every notification issued under sub-section(2) shall be laid before each House or Parliament.

4.Q. Does this Act apply to certain organizations established by the State Government?

A. No. This act shall not apply to the intelligence and security organizations established by the State Government , from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette.

Q. Which is the information not excluded under this Sub-section?

A. The information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violation shall not be excluded under this sub-section.

[In case of information sought for in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.]

5.Q. Is every notification issued under sub-section (4) be laid before the State Legislature ?

56

A. Yes. Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before the State Legislature.

25. Monitoring and reporting

1.Q. When and to whom shall the report of the implementation of the provisions of this Act be made.

A. The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission , as the case may be, shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each year, prepare a report on the implementation of the provisions of this Act during that year and forward a copy to the appropriate Government.

2.Q. Who are the agencies to collect and provide information to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission for preparing the report under this section?

A. Each Ministry or Department shall in relation to the public authorities within their jurisdiction, collect and provide such information to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission , as is required to prepare the report under this Section and comply with the requirements concerning the furnishing of that information and keeping of records for the purposes of this section.

3.Q. Which are the matters related to the said report ?

A. The said report shall state in respect of the year to which the report relates –

(a) the number of requests made to each public authority;

(b) the number of decisions where applications were not entitled to access the documents pursuant to the requests, the provisions of this Act under which these decisions were made and the number of times such provisions were invoked;

(c) the number of appeals referred to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be , for review, the nature of the appeals and the outcome of the appeals;

(d) particulars of any disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect of the administration of this Act;

(e) the amount of charges collected by each public authority under this Act;

(f) any facts which indicate an effort by the public authorities to administer and implement the sprit and intention of this Act;

57

(g) recommendations for reform, including recommendations in respect of the particular public authorities, for the development, other legislation or common law or any other matter relevant for operationalising the right to access information.

4.Q. Does the Central Government or the State Government cause a copy of the report of the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission before each House of Parliament or before each House of the State Legislature?

A. Yes. The Central Government or the State Government, as soon as practicable after the end of each year, cause a copy of the report of the Central Information Commission or the state Information Commission, referred to in sub-section (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, before each House of the state Legislature, where there are two Houses, and where there is one House of the State Legislature before that house.

5.Q. Can the Central Information Commission or state Information Commission recommend the public authority if it appears to them that the said authority is not exercising its functions and not conforming with the provisions in a proper way?

A. Yes. If it appears to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission that the practice or a public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may give to the authority a recommendation specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformity.

58

(a) Evaluation of knowledge on RTI Act, 2005

Time: 20 Minutes

1. Are the following statements true or false, record your answer by placing a tick in the appropriate box: a) Right to Information does not include the right to inspection of work, documents, records

- True/False b) Public authority includes NGO substantially financed, directly by funds of appropriate

Government - True/False c) Record includes any document, manuscript and file - True /False d) Chief Justice of India is competent authority in the case of House of the People and High

Court - True/False e) Logbooks, samples, models are not Information under the RTI Act - True/False, f) Right to information is available to the adult citizens' only - True/False g) A public authority cannot be third party - True/False h) The applicant making request for information is required to give reason for such request

- True/ False

2. Please write down the key words to answer the question :

I. What are issues to be communicated to the applicant while rejecting her/his application? I I. What are the steps to be followed by SPIO to disclose third party information?

I I I. What is meant by ‘third party’ and ‘third party information’ under this Act?

IV. What are steps to be taken by SPIO for providing information?

3. Please mark the answer you select with a tick. (You may select more than one option)

I. Which of the information is not exempted under Section 8?

Information available in fiduciary relationship Information received in confidence from foreign governments Information on matters which are sub-judice Information which impede the process of investigation

II. What powers does the State Information Commission have while inquiring into any matter under Section 18?

Requiring evidence on affidavit Requisitioning any public record or copies form any court or office. Requiring creating a new record Requiring the discovery and inspection of documents

III. Which are the grounds for penalty to a SPIO?

Refusal to receive an RTI application Rejecting an RTI application Giving incorrect, misleading information Obstructing in furnishing the information

IV. Which of the information A Directory of its Officers and employees

59

was not mentioned under Section 4 (b) by Public Authority?

The monthly remuneration of it officers & employees Income tax paid by its officers and employees The powers and duties of its officers and employees

V. What are the issues for which the Central/ State Information Commission may ask compliance from any public authority?

Appointment of CPIO/SPIO as the case may be To publish certain information Appointment of Nodal Officer, RTI Act To withhold exempted information

60

(b) Model Evaluation Questions & Answers

01. When does it come into force?

02. Who is covered?

03. What does information mean?

04. What does Right to Information mean?

05. What are the obligations of public authority?

06. What is not open to disclosure?

07. Is partial disclosure allowed?

08. What does a "public authority" mean?

09. Who is excluded?

10. Who are 'Third Parties'?

11 Who are Public Information Officers (PIOs)?

12 What are the duties of a PIO?

13 What is the Application Procedure for requesting information?

14 What is the time limit to get the information?

15 What is the fee?

16. What could be the ground for rejection?

17. Who are the Appellate Authorities?

18. How is Central Information Commission constituted?

19 What is the eligibility criteria and what is the process of appointment of CIC/IC?

20. What is the term of office and other service conditions of CIC?

21 What is the term of office and other service conditions of IC?

22 How is the State Information Commission constituted?

23 What is the eligibility criterion and what is the process of appointment of State

Chief Information Commissioner/State Information Commissioners? 24 What are the powers and functions of Information Commissions?

25 What is the reporting procedure?

26 What are the penalty provisions?

27 What is the jurisdiction of courts?

28 What is the role of Central/State Governments?

61

01. When does it come into force?

It comes into force on the 12th October, 2005 (120th day of its enactment on 15th June, 2005). Some provisions have come into force with immediate effect viz. obligations of public authorities [S.4(1)], designation of Public Information Officers and Assistant Public Information Officers[S.5(1) and 5(2)], constitution of Central Information Commission (S.12 and 13), constitution of State Information Commission (S.15 and 16), non-applicability of the Act to Intelligence and Security Organizations (S.24) and power to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act (S.27 and 28).

02. Who is covered? The Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. [S.(12)]

03. What does information mean?

Information means any material in any form including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force[S.2(f)].

04. What does Right to Information mean? It includes the right to -

i. inspect works, documents, records. ii. take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records.

iii. take certified samples of material. iv. obtain information in form of printouts, diskettes, floppies, tapes, video

cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts.[S.2(j)]

05. What are the obligations of public authority? It shall publish within one hundred and twenty days of the enactment:- i. the particulars of its organization, functions and duties; ii. the powers and duties of its officers and employees; iii. the procedure followed in its decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; iv. the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; v. the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records used by its employees for discharging its functions; vi. a statement of the categories of the documents held by it or under its control; vii. the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by the

29 Who has the Rule making power?

30 Who has the power to deal with the difficulties while implementing this act?

62

members of the public, in relation to the formulation of policy or implementation thereof; viii. a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted by it. Additionally, information as to whether the meetings of these are open to the public, or the minutes' of such meetings are accessible to the public; ix. a directory of its officers and employees; x. the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; xi. the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; xii. the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details and beneficiaries of such programmes; xiii. particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by it; xiv. details of the information available to, or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; xv. the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; xvi.the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers.[S.4(1)(b)]

06. What is not open to disclosure? The following is exempt from disclosure [S.8)]

i. information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence

ii. information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

iii. information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;

iv. information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

v. information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

vi. information received in confidence from foreign Government; vii. information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety

of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

viii. information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

ix. cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers;

x. 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;

xi. Notwithstanding any of the exemptions listed above, a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

63

07. Is partial disclosure allowed?

Only that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information, may be provided. [S.10]

08. What does a "public authority" mean? It means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or onstituted: [S.2(h)] by or under the Constitution;

by any other law made by Parliament; by any other law made by State Legislature; by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government.and includes anybody owned, controlled or substantially financed non-Government organization substantially financed directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government.

09. Who is excluded?

Central Intelligence and Security agencies specified in the Second Schedule like IB, R&AW, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau, Aviation Research Centre, Special Frontier Force, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG, Assam Rifles, Special Service Bureau, Special Branch (CID), Andaman and Nicobar, The Crime Branch-CID-CB, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Special Branch, Lakshadweep Police. Agencies specified by the State Governments through a Notification will also be excluded. The exclusion, however, is not absolute and these organizations have an obligation to provide information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Further, information relating to allegations of human rights valuations could be given but only with the approval of the Central or State Information Commission, as the case may be. [S.24)]

10. Who are 'Third Parties'?

A third party means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. Third parties have a right to be heard in respect of applications and appeals dealing with information submitted by them to the Government in confidence. [S.2(n) and S.11]

11. Who are Public Information Officers (PIOs)?

PIOs are officers designated by the public authorities in all administrative units or offices under it to provide information to the citizens requesting for information under the Act. Any officer, whose assistance has been sought by the PIO for the proper discharge of his or her duties, shall render all assistance and for the purpose of contraventions of the

64

provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a PIO.

12. What are the duties of a PIO?

PIO shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and where the request cannot be made in writing, to render reasonable assistance to the person to reduce the same in writing.

If the information requested for is held by or its subject matter is closely connected with the function of another public authority, the PIO shall transfer, within 5 days, the request to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately.PIO, on receipt of a request, shall as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within 30 days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in S.8 or S.9.PIO, on receipt of a request, shall as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within 30 days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in S.8 or S.9.Where the information requested for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.If the PIO fails to give decision on the request within the period specified, he shall be deemed to have refused the request.

Where a request has been rejected, the PIO shall communicate to the requester - (i) the reasons for such rejection, (ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred, and (iii) the particulars of the Appellate Authority.PIO shall provide information in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. If allowing partial access, the PIO shall give a notice to the applicant, informing:

a. that only part of the record requested, after severance of the record containing information which is exempt from disclosure, is being provided;

b. the reasons for the decision, including any findings on any material question of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based;

c. the name and designation of the person giving the decision;

d. the details of the fees calculated by him or her and the amount of fee which the applicant is required to deposit; and

e. his or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding non-disclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of access provided.

If information sought has been supplied by third party or is treated as

65

confidential by that third party, the PIO shall give a written notice to the third party within 5 days from the receipt of the request and take its representation into consideration. Third party must be given a chance to make a representation before the PIO within 10 days from the date of receipt of such notice.

13. What is the Application Procedure for requesting information?

1. Apply in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area, to the PIO, specifying the particulars of the information sought for.

2 Reason for seeking information are not required to be given; 3 Pay fees as may be prescribed (if not belonging to the below poverty line

category).

14. What is the time limit to get the information?

1. 30 days from the date of application 2. 48 hours for information concerning the life and liberty of a person 3. 5 days shall be added to the above response time, in case the application for information is given to Assistant Public Information Officer. 4. If the interests of a third party are involved then time limit will be 40 days (maximum period+ time given to the party to make representation). 5. Failure to provide information within the specified period is a deemed refusal.

15. What is the fee?

1. Application fees to be prescribed which must be reasonable. 2. If further fees are required, then the same must be intimated in writing

with calculation details of how the figure was arrived at; 3. Applicant can seek review of the decision on fees charged by the PIO by

applying to the appropriate Appellate Authority; 4. No fees will be charged from people living below the poverty line 5. Applicant must be provided information free of cost if the PIO fails to

comply with the prescribed time limit.

16. What could be the ground for rejection?

1. If it is covered by exemption from disclosure. (S.8) 2. If it infringes copyright of any person other than the State.

(S.9)

17. Who are the Appellate Authorities?

1. First Appeal: First appeal to the officer senior in rank to the PIO in the concerned Public Authority within 30 days from the expiry of the prescribed time limit or from the receipt of the decision (delay may be condoned by the Appellate Authority if sufficient cause is shown).

66

2. Second Appeal: Second appeal to the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission as the case may be, within 90 days of the date on which the decision was given or should have been made by the First Appellate Authority. (delay may be condoned by the Commission if sufficient cause is shown).

3. Third Party appeal against PIO's decision must be filed within 30 days before first Appellate Authority; and, within 90 days of the decision on the first appeal, before the appropriate Information Commission which is the second appellate authority.

4. Burden of proving that denial of Information was justified lies with the PIO. 5. First Appeal shall be disposed of within 30 days from the date of its receipt.

Period extendable by 15 days if necessary. (S.19)

18. How is Central Information Commission constituted?

1. Central Information Commission to be constituted by the Central Government through a Gazette Notification.

2. Commission includes 1 Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and not more than 10 Information Commissioners (IC) who will be appointed by the President of India.

3. Oath of Office will be administered by the President of India according to the form set out in the First Schedule.

4. Commission shall have its Headquarters in Delhi. Other offices may be established in other parts of the country with the approval of the Central Government.

5. Commission will exercise its powers without being subjected to directions by any other authority. (S.12)

19. What is the eligibility criteria and what is the process of appointment of CIC/IC?

1. Candidates for CIC/IC must be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.

2. CIC/IC shall not be a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory. He shall not hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession. (S.12)

3. Appointment Committee includes Prime Minister (Chair), Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and one Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister.

20. What is the term of office and other service conditions of CIC?

1. CIC shall be appointed for a term of 5 years from date on which he enters upon his office or till he attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. 2. CIC is not eligible for reappointment. 3. Salary will be the same as that of the Chief Election Commissioner. This will not be varied to the disadvantage of the CIC during service. (S.13)

67

21. What is the term of office and other service conditions of IC?1. IC shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters

upon his office or till he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier and shall not be eligible for reappointment as IC.

2. Salary will be the same as that of the Election Commissioner. This will not be varied to the disadvantage of the IC during service.

3. IC is eligible for appointment as CIC but will not hold office for more than a total of five years including his/her term as IC. (S.13)

22. How is the State Information Commission constituted?1. notification. It will have one State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC)

and not more than 10 State Information Commissioners (SIC) to be appointed by the Governor.

2. Oath of office will be administered by the Governor according to the form set out in the First Schedule.

3. The headquarters of the State Information Commission shall be at such place as the State Government may specify. Other offices may be established in other parts of the State with the approval of the State Government.

4. The Commission will exercise its powers without being subjected to any other authority.

23. What is the eligibility criterion and what is the process of appointment of State Chief Information Commissioner/State Information Commissioners?

The Appointments Committee will be headed by the Chief Minister. Other members include the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and one Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister.

The qualifications for appointment as SCIC/SIC shall be the same as that for Central Commissioners.

The salary of the State Chief Information Commissioner will be the same as that of an Election Commissioner. The salary of the State Information Commissioner will be the same as that of the Chief Secretary of the State Government. (S.15)

24. What are the powers and functions of Information Commissions? 1. The Central Information Commission/State Information Commission has a duty to receive complaints from any person -

a) who has not been able to submit an information request because a PIO has not been appointed ;

b) who has been refused information that was requested; c) who has received no response to his/her information request within the specified

time limits ; d) who thinks the fees charged are unreasonable ;e) who thinks information given is incomplete or false or misleading ;and f) any other matter relating to obtaining information under this law.

68

2. Power to order inquiry if there are reasonable grounds. 3. CIC / SCIC will have powers of Civil Court such as - a) summoning and enforcing attendance of persons, compelling them to give oral or

written evidence on oath and to produce documents or things;b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; c) receiving evidence on affidavit ;d) requisitioning public records or copies from any court or office e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documentsf) any other matter which may be prescribed.4. All records covered by this law (including those covered by exemptions) must be

given to CIC/SCIC during inquiry for examination. 5. Power to secure compliance of its decisions from the Public Authority includes- a) providing access to information in a particular form;b) directing the public authority to appoint a PIO/APIO where none exists; c) publishing information or categories of information;d) making necessary changes to the practices relating to management, maintenance

and destruction of records ; e) enhancing training provision for officials on RTI;f) seeking an annual report from the public authority on compliance with this law; g) require it to compensate for any loss or other detriment suffered by the applicant ;h) impose penalties under this law; ori) reject the application. (S.18 and S.19)

25. What is the reporting procedure?

1. Central Information Commission will send an annual report to the Central Government on the implementation of the provisions of this law at the end of the year. The State Information Commission will send a report to the State Government.

2. Each Ministry has a duty to compile reports from its Public Authorities and send them to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be.

3. Each report will contain details of number of requests received by each Public Authority, number of rejections and appeals, particulars of any disciplinary action taken, amount of fees and charges collected etc.

4. Central Government will table the Central Information Commission report before Parliament after the end of each year. The concerned State Government will table the report of the State Information Commission before the Vidhan Sabha (and the Vidhan Parishad wherever applicable). (S.25)

26. What are the penalty provisions?

Every PIO will be liable for fine of Rs. 250 per day, up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000/-, for -

69

i. not accepting an application;

ii. delaying information release without reasonable cause;

iii. malafidely denying information;

iv. knowingly giving incomplete, incorrect, misleading information;

v. destroying information that has been requested and

vi. obstructing furnishing of information in any manner.

The Information Commission (IC) at the Centre and the State levels will have the power to impose this penalty. The Information Commission can also recommend disciplinary action for violation of the law against an erring PIO. (S.20)

27. What is the jurisdiction of courts?

Lower Courts are barred from entertaining suits or applications against any order made under this Act. (S.23) However, the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 32 and 225 of the Constitution remains unaffected. 28. What is the role of Central/State Governments? 1. Develop educational programmes for the public especially disadvantaged communities on RTI.

2. Encourage Public Authorities to participate in the development and organization of such programmes. 3. Promote timely dissemination of accurate information to the public. 4. Train officers and develop training materials.

5. Compile and disseminate a User Guide for the public in the respective official language. 6. Publish names, designation postal addresses and contact details of PIOs and other information such as notices regarding fees to be paid, remedies available in law if request is rejected etc. (S.26) 29. Who has the Rule making power? Central Government, State Governments and the Competent Authority as defined in S.2(e) are vested with powers to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.(S.27 & S.28)

30. Who has the power to deal with the difficulties while implementing this act?

If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions in the Act, the Central Government may, by Order published in the Official Gazette, make provisions necessary/expedient for removing the difficulty. (S.30)

70

ADDITIONAL STUDY PAPERS

1. Guide on Right to Information Act, 2005 (by DoPT)

The right to information is implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. However, with a view to set out a practical regime for securing information, the Indian Parliament enacted the Right to Information Act, 2005 and thus gave a powerful tool to the citizens to get information from the Government as a matter of right. This law is very comprehensive and covers almost all matters of governance and has the widest possible reach, being applicable to Government at all levels- Union, State and Local as well as recipients of government grants.

2. The Act requires the Government to compile a guide in easily comprehensible form and to update it from time to time. The Government has already published four guides in the past, one each for the information seekers, the public authorities, the Central Public Information Officers and the Appellate Authorities. Here is an updated consolidated guide for the use of all stake-holders. This guide contains five parts. Part I of the guide discusses some aspects of the Act which all the stake-holder are required to know. Rest of the four parts are specifically relevant to the public authorities, the information seekers, the public information officers and the first appellate authorities respectively.

3. Contents of this guide are specifically relevant in relation to the Central Government but are equally applicable to the State Governments except in relation to rules about payment of fee or deciding of appeals by the Information Commissions. It may be noted that this guide uses the term Public Information Officer in place of Central Public Information Officer/State Public Information Officer. Likewise Assistant Public Information Officer has been used for Central Assistant Public Information Officer/State Assistant Public Information Officer and Information Commission for Central Information Commission/State Information Commission except where it was considered necessary to make specific reference to the Central Public Information Officer/Central Information Commission etc. The Departmental Appellate Authority has been referred to as First Appellate Authority inasmuch as the first appeal lies with him.

Part I For All Stake Holders

Object of the Right to Information Act

4. The basic object of the Right to Information Act is to empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government, contain corruption, and make our democracy work for the people in real sense.

71

It goes without saying that an informed citizen is better equipped to keep necessary vigil on the instruments of governance and make the government more accountable to the governed. The Act is a big step towards making the citizens informed about the activities of the Government.

What is Information

4. Information is any material in any form. It includes records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form. It also includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any law for the time being in force.

What is a Public Authority

6. A “public authority” is any authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted by or under the Constitution; or by any other law made by the Parliament or a State Legislature; or by notification issued or order made by the Central Government or a State Government. The bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Central Government or a State Government and non-Government organisations substantially financed by the Central Government or a State Government also fall within the definition of public authority. The financing of the body or the NGO by the Government may be direct or indirect.

Public Information Officer

7. Public authorities have designated some of its officers as Public Information Officer. They are responsible to give information to a person who seeks information under the RTI Act.

Assistant Public Information Officer

8. These are the officers at sub-divisional level to whom a person can give his RTI application or appeal. These officers send the application or appeal to the Public Information Officer of the public authority or the concerned appellate authority. An Assistant Public Information Officer is not responsible to supply the information.

9. The Assistant Public Information Officers appointed by the Department of Posts in various post offices are working as Assistant Public Information Officers for all the public authorities under the Government of India.

Right to Information under the Act

10. A citizen has a right to seek such information from a public authority which is held by the public authority or which is held under its control. This right includes inspection of work, documents and records; taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; and taking certified samples of material held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.

11. The Act gives the citizens a right to information at par with the Members of Parliament and the Members of State Legislatures. According to the Act, the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature, shall not be denied to any person.

72

12. A citizen has a right to obtain information from a public authority in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through print-outs provided such information is already stored in a computer or in any other device from which the information may be e-mailed or transferred to diskettes etc.

13. The information to the applicant should ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought. However, if the supply of information sought in a particular form would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or may cause harm to the safety or preservation of the records, supply of information in that form may be denied.

14. In some cases, the applicants expect the Public Information Officer to give information in some particular proforma devised by them on the plea that they have a right to get information in the form in which it is sought. It need be noted that the provision in the Act simply means that if the information is sought in the form of photocopy, it shall be provided in the form of photocopy, or if it is sought in the form of a floppy, it shall be provided in that form subject to the conditions given in the Act. It does not mean that the PIO shall re-shape the information. This is substantiated by the definition of the term ‘right to information’ as given in the Act, according to which, it includes right to obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through print-outs provided such information is already stored in a computer or in any other device. Everywhere in the Act, the word ‘form’ has been used to represent this meaning.

15. Some Information Seekers request the Public Information Officers to cull out information from some document(s) and give such extracted information to them. A citizen has a right to get ‘material’ from a public authority which is held by or under the control of that public authority. The Act, however, does not require the Public Information Officer to deduce some conclusion from the ‘material’ and supply the ‘conclusion’ so deduced to the applicant. It means that the Public Information Officer is required to supply the ‘material’ in the form as held by the public authority, but not to do research on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply it to him.

Right to Information Vis-à-Vis other Acts

16. The RTI Act has over-riding effect vis-à-vis other laws inasmuch as the provisions of the RTI Act would 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 the RTI Act.

Supply of Information to Associations etc

17. The Act gives the right to information only to the citizens of India. It does not make provision for giving information to Corporations, Associations, Companies etc. which are legal entities/persons, but not citizens. However, if an application is made by an employee or office-bearer of any Corporation, Association, Company, NGO etc. indicating his name and such employee/office bearer is a citizen of India, information may be supplied to him/her. In such cases, it would be presumed that a citizen has sought information at the address of the Corporation etc.

Fee for Seeking Information

18. A person who desires to seek some information from a public authority is required to send, along with the application, a demand draft or a banker’s cheque or an Indian Postal Order of Rs. 10/- (Rupees ten), payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority as fee prescribed for seeking information. The payment of fee can also be made by way of cash to the Accounts Officer of the public authority or to the Assistant Public Information Officer against proper receipt.

73

19. The applicant may also be required to pay further fee towards the cost of providing the information, details of which shall be intimated to the applicant by the PIO as prescribed by the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. Rates of fee as prescribed in the Rules are given below:

(a) rupees two (Rs. 2/-) for each page ( in A-4 or A-3 size paper) created or copied;

(b) actual charge or cost price of a copy in larger size paper;

(c) actual cost or price for samples or models;

(d) for information provided in diskette or floppy, rupees fifty (Rs. 50/-) per diskette or floppy; and

(e) for information provided in printed form, at the price fixed for such publication or rupees two per page of photocopy for extracts from the publication.

20. As already pointed out, a citizen has a right to inspect the records of a public authority. For inspection of records, the public authority shall charge no fee for the first hour. But a fee of rupees five (Rs. 5/-) for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof) shall be charged.

21. If the applicant belongs to below poverty line (BPL) category, he is not required to pay any fee. However, he should submit a proof in support of his claim to belong to the below poverty line. The application not accompanied by the prescribed fee of Rs. 10/- or proof of the applicant’s belonging to below poverty line, as the case may be, shall not be a valid application under the Act. It may be pointed out that there is no bar on the public authority to supply information in response to such applications. However, provisions of Act would not apply to such cases.

Format of Application

22. There is no prescribed format of application for seeking information. The application can be made on plain paper. The application should, however, have the name and complete postal address of the applicant. Even in cases where the information is sought electronically, the application should contain name and postal address of the applicant.

23. The information seeker is not required to give reasons for seeking information.

Information Exempted from Disclosure

24. Sub-section (1) of section 8 and section 9 of the Act enumerate the types of information which is exempt from disclosure. Sub-section (2) of section 8, however, provides that information exempted under sub-section (1) or exempted under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 can be disclosed if public interest in disclosure overweighs the harm to the protected interest.

25. The information which, in normal course, is exempt from disclosure under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act, would cease to be exempted if 20 years have lapsed after occurrence of the incident to which the information relates.

However, the following types of information would continue to be exempt and there would be no obligation, even after lapse of 20 years, to give any citizen:

(i) information disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interest of the State, relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence;

74

(ii) information the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of

Parliament or State Legislature; or

(iii) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other Officers subject to the conditions given in proviso to clause (i) of sub-section(1) of Section 8 of the Act.

Record Retention Schedule and the Act

26. The Act does not require the public authorities to retain records for indefinite period. The records need be retained as per the record retention schedule applicable to the concerned public authority. Information generated in a file may survive in the form of an OM or a letter or in any other form even after destruction of the file/record. Section 8(3) of the Act requires furnishing of information so available after the lapse of 20 years even if such information was exempt from disclosure under sub-section(1) of Section 8.

Assistance Available to the Applicant

27. If a person is unable to make a request in writing, he may seek the help of the Public Information Officer to write his application and the Public Information Officer should render him reasonable assistance. Where a decision is taken to give access to a sensorily disabled person to any document, the Public Information Officer, shall provide such assistance to the person as may be appropriate for inspection.

Time Period for Supply of Information

28. In normal course, information to an applicant shall be supplied within 30 days from the receipt of application by the public authority. If information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, it shall be supplied within 48 hours. In case the application is sent through the Assistant Public Information Officer or it is sent to a wrong public authority, five days shall be added to the period of thirty days or 48 hours, as the case may be. Further details in this regard are given in the chapter, ‘For the Public Information Officers.’

Appeals

29. If an applicant is not supplied information within the prescribed time of thirty days or 48 hours, as the case may be, or is not satisfied with the information furnished to him, he may prefer an appeal to the first appellate authority who is an officer senior in rank to the Public Information Officer. Such an appeal, should be filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which the limit of 30 days of supply of information is expired or from the date on which the information or decision of the Public Information Officer is received. The appellate authority of the public authority shall dispose of the appeal within a period of thirty days or in exceptional cases within 45 days of the receipt of the appeal.

30. If the first appellate authority fails to pass an order on the appeal within the prescribed period or if the appellant is not satisfied with the order of the first appellate authority, he may prefer a second appeal with the Central Information Commission within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made by the first appellate authority or was actually received by the appellant.

Complaints

31. If any person is unable to submit a request to a Public Information Officer either by reason that such an officer has not been appointed by the concerned public authority; or the Assistant Public Information Officer has refused to accept his or her application or appeal for forwarding the same to the

75

Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be; or he has been refused access to any information requested by him under the RTI Act; or he has not been given a response to a request for information within the time limit specified in the Act; or he has been required to pay an amount of fee which he considers unreasonable; or he believes that he has been given incomplete, misleading or false information, he can make a complaint to the Information Commission.

Disposal of Appeals and Complaints by the CIC

32. The Central Information Commission decides the appeals and complaints and conveys its decision to the appellant/complainant and first appellate authority / Public Information Officer. The Commission may decide an appeal/complaint after hearing the parties to the appeal/complaint or by inspection of documents produced by the appellant/complainant and Public Information Officer or such senior officer of the public authority who decided the first appeal. If the Commission chooses to hear the parties before deciding the appeal or the complaint, the Commission will inform the date of hearing to the appellant or the complainant at least seven clear days before the date of hearing. The appellant/complainant has the discretion to be present in person or through his authorized representative at the time of hearing or not to be present.

Third Party Information

33. Third party in relation to the Act means a person other than the citizen who has made request for information. The definition of third party includes a public authority other than the public authority to whom the request has been made.

Disclosure of Third Party Information

34. Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, is exempt from disclosure. Such information should not be disclosed unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.

35. In regard to a third party information which the third party has treated as confidential, the Public Information Officer should follow the procedure as given in the chapter ‘For public information officers’. The third party should be given full opportunity to put his case for non-disclosure if he desires that the information should not be disclosed.

Public authorities are the repository of information which the citizens have a right to have under the

Right to Information Act, 2005. The Act casts important obligations on public authorities so as to facilitate the citizens of the country to access the information held under their control. The obligations of a public authority are basically the obligations of the head of the authority, who should ensure that these are met in right earnest. Reference made to public authority in this document is, in fact, a reference to the head of the public authority.

Maintenance and Computerisation of Records 3. Proper management of records is of utmost importance for effective implementation of the provisions of the Act. A public authority should, therefore, maintain all its records properly. It should ensure that the records are duly catalogued and indexed in such a manner and form that it may facilitate the right to information.

76

Suo Motu Disclosure 3. Every public authority should provide as much information suo motu to the public through various means of communications so that the public have minimum need to use the Act to obtain information. Internet being one of the most effective means of communications, the information may be posted on the website.

Part II

For Public Authorities 4. Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, in particular, requires every public authority to publish following sixteen categories of information: (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers. 5. Besides the categories of information enumerated above, the Government may prescribe other categories of information to be published by any public authority. It need be stressed that publication of the information as referred to above is not optional. It is a statutory requirement which every public authority is bound to meet. 6. Another important point to note is that it is not sufficient to publish the above information once. The public authority is obliged to update such information every year. It is advisable that, as far as possible, the information should be updated as and when any development takes place. Particularly, in case of publication on the internet, the information should be kept updated all the time. Dissemination of Information

77

7. The public authority should widely disseminate the information. Dissemination should be done in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public. It may be done through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcast, the internet or any other means. The public authority should take into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and most effective method of communication in the local area while disseminating the information. Publication of Facts about Policies and Decisions 8. Public authorities formulate policies and take various decisions from time to time. As provided in the Act, while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions affecting the public, the public authority should publish all relevant facts about such policies and decisions for the information of public at large. Providing Reasons for Decisions 9. The public authorities take various administrative and quasi-judicial decisions which affect the interests of certain persons. It is mandatory for the concerned public authority to provide reasons for such decisions to the affected persons. It may be done by using appropriate mode of communication. Designation of PIOs and APIOs etc. 10. Every public authority is required to designate Public Information Officers in all the administrative units or offices under it. Every public authority is also requiredII to designate Assistant Public Information Officers at each sub-divisional level. The Government of India has decided that Central Assistant Public Information Officers (CAPIOs) appointed by the Department of Posts would act as CAPIOs for all the public authorities under the Government of India. Act, 2005 Designation of Appellate Authority 11. Sub-section (8) of Section 7 of the RTI Act provides that where a request for information is rejected, the Public Information Officer shall, inter-alia,communicate the particulars of the Appellate Authority to the person making the request. Thus, the applicant is informed about the particulars of the Appellate Authority when a request for information is rejected but there may be cases where the Public Information Officer does not reject the application, but the applicant does not receive a decision within the time as specified in the Act or he is aggrieved by the decision of the Public Information Officer. In such a case the applicant may like to exercise his right to appeal. But in absence of the particulars of the appellate authority, the applicant may face difficulty in making an appeal. All the public authorities should, therefore, designate the First Appellate Authorities and publish their particulars alongwith the particulars of the Public Information Officers. Acceptance of Fee 12. According to the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 as amended by the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, an applicant can make payment of fee in cash or by demand draft or banker’s cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority. The public authority should ensure that payment by any of the above modes is not denied or the applicant is not compelled to draw IPO etc. in the name of any officer other than the Accounts Officer. If any public authority does not have any Accounts Officer, it should designate an officer as such for the purpose of receiving fee under the RTI Act or rules made thereunder. Compliance of the Orders of the Information Commission 13. While deciding an appeal, the Information Commission, may require the concerned public authority to take such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act. In

78

this regard the Commission may pass an order to provide information to an applicant in a particular form; appoint a Public Information Officer; publish certain information or categories of information; make necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records; enhance the provision of training for its officials; provide an annual report as prepared in compliance with clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act. 14. The Commission has power to pass orders requiring a public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered by him. It also has power to impose penalty on the Public Information Officer as provided in the Act. It may be noted that penalty is imposed on the Public Information Officer which is to be paid by him. However, the compensation, ordered by the Commission to be paid to an applicant would have to be paid by the public authority, 15. The decisions of the Commission are binding. The public authority should ensure that the orders passed by the Commission are implemented. If any public authority or a PIO is of the view that an order of the Commission is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, it may approach the High Court by way of a Writ Petition. Development of Programmes etc 16. It is expected of each public authority that it would develop and organize educational programmes to advance the understanding of the public, in particular of disadvantaged communities, as to how to exercise the rights contemplated under the Act; and ensure timely and effective dissemination of accurate information about their activities. Training of the Public Information Officers and other officers of a public authority is very important for meeting these expectations and effective implementation of the provisions of the Act. The public authorities should, therefore, arrange for training of their officers designated as Public Information Officer/First Appellate Authority and other officers who are directly or indirectly involved in the implementation of the provisions of the Act. Creation of Central Point

17. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 mandates all public authorities to designate as many Public Information Officers as necessary to provide information under the Act. Where a public authority designates more than one Public Information Officer (PIO), an applicant is likely to face difficulty in approaching the appropriate Public Information Officer. The applicants would also face problem in identifying the officer senior in rank to the Public Information Officer to whom an appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act can be made. Therefore all public authorities with more than one PIO should create a central point within the organisation where all the RTI applications and the appeals addressed to the First Appellate Authorities may be received. An officer should be made responsible to ensure that all the RTI applications/appeals received at the central point are sent to the concerned Public Information Officers/Appellate Authorities, on the same day. Transfer of Applications 18. The Act provides that if an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information, which is held by another public authority; or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or relevant part of it to that other public authority within five days from the receipt of the application. The public authority should sensitize its officers about this provision of the Act lest the public authority is held responsible for delay. Annual Report of the CIC 19. The Information Commissions, after the end of each year, are required to prepare reports on the implementation of the provisions of the Act during that year. Each Ministry or Department is required, in relation to the public authorities within its jurisdiction, to collect and provide information to the concerned

79

Information Commission for preparation of the report. The report of the Commission, inter-alia, contains following information in respect of the year to which the report relates: (a) the number of requests made to each public authority; (b) the number of decisions where applicants were not entitled to access to the documents pursuant to the requests, the provisions of the Act under which these decisions were made and the number of times such provisions were invoked; (c) particulars of any disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect of the administration of the Act; (d) the amount of charges collected by each public authority under the Act; and (e) any facts which indicate an effort by the public authorities to administer and implement the spirit and intention of the Act. 20. Every public authority should send necessary material to its administrative Ministry/Department soon after the end of the year so that the Ministry/ Department may send the information to the Commission and the Commission may incorporate the same in its report. 21. If it appears to the Information Commission that a practice of a public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under the Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of the Act, it may give a recommendation to the authority specifying the steps ought to be taken for promoting such conformity. The concerned public authority should take necessary action to bring its practice in conformity with the Act. Part II - For Public Authorities Method of Seeking Information

A citizen, who desires to obtain any information under the Act, should make an application to the Public Information Officer of the concerned public authority in writing in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is made. The application should be precise and specific. He should make payment of application fee at the time of submitting the application as prescribed in the Fee Rules. The applicant can send the application by post or through electronic means or can deliver it personally in the office of the public authority. The application can also be sent through an Assistant Public Information Officer. Application to the Concerned Public Authority 2. The applicant should make application to the concerned public authority. It is advised that he should make all efforts to ascertain as to which is the public authority concerned with the information and should send application to the Public Information Officer of that public authority. 3. It is observed that some applicants seek information in respect of many subjects by way of one application. It creates problem for the Public Information Officer as well as the applicant. The applicant should, therefore, see to it that by way of one application, he seeks information in respect of one subject only.

Part III For Information Seekers

Fee for Seeking Information 5. The applicant, along with the application, should send application fee to the Public Information Officer. In case of Government of India prescribed application fee is Rs. 10/- which can be paid through a demand draft or a banker’s cheque or an Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority. The payment of fee can also be made by way of cash to the Accounts Officer of the public authority or to the Assistant Public Information Officer against properreceipt. 5. The applicant may also be required to pay further fee towards the cost of providing the information, details of which shall be intimated to the applicant by the Public Information Officer. The fee so demanded can be paid the same way as application fee.

80

6. If the applicant belongs to below poverty line (BPL) category, he is not required to pay any fee. However, he should submit a proof in support of his claim to belong to the below poverty line. The application not accompanied by the prescribed application fee or proof of the applicant’s belonging to below poverty line, as the case may be, shall not be a valid application under the Act. Format of Application 7, There is no prescribed format of application for seeking information. The application can be made on plain paper. The application should, however, have, the name and complete postal address of the applicant. Even in cases where the information is sought electronically, the application should contain name and postal address of the applicant.

Filing of Appeal 8. An applicant can file an appeal to the first appellate authority if information is not supplied to him within the prescribed time of thirty days or 48 hours, as the case may be, or is not satisfied with the information furnished to him. Such an appeal, should be filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which the limit of 30 days of supply of information is expired or from the date on which the information or decision of the Public Information Officer is received. The appellate authority of the public authority shall dispose of the appeal within a period of thirty days or in exceptional cases within 45 days of the receipt of the appeal. 9. If the appellate authority fails to pass an order on the appeal within the prescribed period or if the appellant is not satisfied with the order of the first appellate authority, he may prefer a second appeal with the Information Commission within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made by the first appellate authority or was actually received by the appellant. 10. The appeal made to the Central Information Commission should contain the following information: (i) name and address of the appellant; (ii) name and address of the Public Information Officer against the decision of whom the appeal is preferred; (iii) particulars of the order including number, if any, against which the appeal is preferred; (iv) brief facts leading to the appeal; (v) if the appeal is preferred against deemed refusal, particulars of the application, including number and date and name and address of the Public Information Officer to whom the application was made; (vi) prayer or relief sought; (v) grounds for prayer or relief; (vi) verification by the appellant; and (vii) any other information, which the Commission may deem necessary for deciding the appeal. 11. The appeal made to the Central Information Commission should be accompanied by the following documents: (i) self-attested copies of the orders or documents against which appeal is made; (ii) copies of the documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in the appeal; and (iii) an index of the documents referred to in the appeal.

81

Filing of Complaints 12. A person can make a complaint to the Information Commission if he is unable to submit a request to a Public Information Officer either by reason that such an officer has not been appointed by the concerned public authority; or the Assistant Public Information Officer has refused to accept his or her application or appeal for forwarding the same to the Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be; or he has been refused access to any information requested by him under the RTI Act; or he has not been given a response to a request for information within the time limit specified in the Act; or he has been required to pay an amount of fee which he considers unreasonable; or he believes that he has been given incomplete, misleading or false information.

The Public Information Officer of a public authority plays a pivotal role in making the right of citizens to information a reality. The Act casts specific duties on him and makes him liable for penalty in case of default. It is, therefore, essential for a Public Information Officer to study the Act carefully and understand its provisions correctly. Besides the issues discussed elsewhere in this document, a Public Information Officer should keep the following aspects in view while dealing with the applications under the Act. Applications Received Without Fee 2. Soon after receiving the application, the Public Information Officer should check whether the applicant has made the payment of application fee or whether the applicant is a person belonging to a Below Poverty Line (BPL) family. If application is not accompanied by the prescribed fee or the BPL Certificate, it cannot be treated as an application under the RTI Act. It may, however, be noted that Public Information Officer should consider such application sympathetically and try to supply information sought by way of such an application. Transfer of Application 3. Some times requests are made to a public authority for information which do not concern that public authority or only a part of which is available with the public authority to which the application is made and remaining or whole of the information concerns another public authority or many other public authorities.

Part IV

For Public Information Officers

4. Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that a person who desires to obtain any information shall make a request to the public information officer of the concerned public authority. Section 6(3) provides that where an application is made to a public authority requesting for any information which is held by another public authority or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority to which such an application is made, shall transfer the application to that other public authority. The provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section(3) of Section 6, suggest that the Act requires an information seeker to address the application to the Public Information Officer of the ‘concerned public authority’. However, there may be cases in which a person of ordinary prudence may believe that the information sought by him/her would be available with the public authority to which he/she has addressed the application, but is actually held by some other public authority. In such cases, the applicant makes a bonafide mistake of addressing the application to the Public Information Officer of a wrong public authority. On the other hand where an applicant addresses the application to the Public Information Officer of a public authority, which to a person of ordinary prudence, would not appear to be the concern of that public authority, the applicant does not fulfill his responsibility of addressing the application to the ‘concerned public authority’. 5 Given hereinunder are some situations which may arise in the matter and action required to be taken in such cases:

82

(i) a person makes an application to a public authority for some information which concerns some another public authority. In such a case, the Public Information Officer receiving the application should transfer the application to the concerned public authority under intimation to the applicant. However, if the Public Information Officer of the public authority is not able to find out as to which public authority is concerned with the information even after making reasonable efforts to find out the concerned public authority, he should inform the applicant that the information is not available with his public authority and that he is not aware of the particulars of the concerned public authority to which the application could be transferred. It would, however, be the responsibility of the PIO, if an appeal is made against his decision, to establish that he made reasonable efforts to find out the particulars of the concerned public authority. (ii) a person makes an application to a public authority for information, only a part of which is available with that public authority and a part of the information concerns some ‘another public authority.’ In such a case, the 2 Public Information Officer should supply the information concerning his public authority and a copy of the application should be sent to that another public authority under intimation to the applicant.

(iii) a person makes an application to a public authority for information, a part of which is available with that public authority and the rest of the information is scattered with more than one other public authorities. In such a case, the Public Information Officer of the public authority receiving the application should give information relating to it and advise the applicant to make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. If no part of the information sought, is available with it but is scattered with more than one other public authorities, the Public Information Officer should inform the applicant that information is not available with the public authority and that the applicant should make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. It may be noted that the Act requires the supply of such information only which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to collect the information from various public authorities to supply it to the applicant. At the same time, since the information is not related to any one another particular public authority, it is not the case where application should be transferred under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that sub-section (3) refers to ‘another public authority’ and not to ‘other public authorities’. Use of singular form in the Act in this regard is important to note. (iv) if a person makes an application to a public authority of Central Government for some information which is the concern of a public authority under any State Government or the Union Territory Administration, the Public Information Officer of the public authority receiving the application should inform the applicant that the information may be had from the concerned State Government/UT Administration. Application, in such a case, need not be transferred to the State Government/UT Administration. 6. In brief, if the application is accompanied by the prescribed fee or the Below Poverty Line Certificate, the Public Information Officer should check whether the subject matter of the application or a part thereof concerns some other public authority. If the subject matter of the application concerns any other public authority, it should be transferred to that public authority. If only a part of the application concerns the other public authority, a copy of the application may be sent to that public authority, clearly specifying the part which relates to that5public authority. While transferring the application or sending a copy thereof, the concerned public authority should be informed that the application fee has been received. The applicant should also be informed about the transfer of his application and the particulars of the public authority to whom the application or a copy thereof has been sent. 7. Transfer of application or part thereof, as the case may be, should be made as soon as possible and in any case within five days from the date of receipt of the application. If a Public Information Officer transfers an application after five days from the receipt of the application, he would be responsible for delay in disposal of the application to the extent of number of days which he takes in transferring the application beyond 5 days.

83

8. The Public Information Officer of the public authority to whom the application is transferred, should not refuse acceptance of transfer of the application on the ground that it was not transferred to him within 5 days. 9. A public authority may designate as many Public Information Officers for it, as it may deem necessary. It is possible that in a public authority with more than one Public Information Officer, an application is received by the Public Information Officer other than the concerned Public Information Officer. In such a case, the Public Information Officer receiving the application should transfer it to the concerned Public Information Officer immediately, preferably the same day. Time period of five days for transfer of the application applies only when the application is transferred from one public authority to another public authority and not for transfer from one Public Information Officer to another in the same public authority. Rendering Assistance to Applicants 10. The RTI Act provides that the Public Information Officer has a duty to render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking information. As per provisions of the Act, a person, who desires to obtain any information, is required to make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is made. If a person seeking information is not able to make such request in writing, the Public Information Officer should render reasonable assistance to him to reduce the same in writing. 11. Where access to a record is required to be provided to a sensorily disabled person, the Public Information Officer should provide assistance to such person to enable him to access the information. He should also provide such assistance to the person as may be appropriate for the inspection of records where such inspection is involved. Assistance Available to PIO

12. The Public Information Officer may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties. The officer, whose assistance is so sought by the Public Information Officer, would render all assistance to him. Such an officer shall be deemed to be a Public Information Officer and would be liable for contravention of any provisions of the Act the same way as any other Public Information Officer. It would be advisable for the Public Information Officer to inform the officer whose assistance is sought, about the above provision, at the time of seeking his assistance. 13. Some Public Information Officers, on the basis of above referred provision of the Act, transfer the RTI applications received by them to other officers and direct them to send information to the applicants as deemed Public Information Officer. Thus, they use the above referred provision to designate other officers as Public Information Officer. According to the Act, it is the responsibility of the officer who is designated as the Public Information Officer by the public authority to provide information to the applicant or reject the application for any reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The Act enables the Public Information Officer to seek assistance of any other officer to enable him to provide information to the information seeker, but it does not give him authority to designate any other officer as Public Information Officer and direct him to send reply to the applicant. The import of the provision is that, if the officer whose assistance is sought by the Public Information Officer, does not render necessary help to him, the Information Commission may impose penalty on such officer or recommend disciplinary action against him the same way as the Commission may impose penalty on or recommend disciplinary action against the Public Information Officer. Supply of Information 14. The answering Public Information Officer should check whether the information sought or a part thereof is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 or Section 9 of the Act. Request in respect of the part

84

of the application which is so exempt may be rejected and rest of the information should be provided immediately or after receipt of additional fees, as the case may be. 15. Where a request for information is rejected, the Public Information Officer should communicate to the person making the request: (i) the reasons for such rejection; (ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and (iii) the particulars of the authority to whom an appeal can be made.

16. If additional fee is required to be paid by the applicant as provided in the Fee and Cost Rules, the Public Information Officer should inform the applicant: (i) the details of further fees required to be paid; (ii) the calculations made to arrive at the amount of fees asked for; (iii) the fact that the applicant has a right to make appeal about the amount of fees so demanded; (iv) the particulars of the authority to whom such an appeal can be made; and (v) the time limit within which the appeal can be made. Supply of Part Information by Severance 17. Where a request is received for access to information which is exempt from disclosure but a part of which is not exempt, and such part can be severed in such a way that the severed part does not contain exempt information then, access to that part of the information/record may be provided to the applicant. Where access is granted to a part of the record in such a way, the Public Information Officer should inform the applicant that the information asked for is exempt from disclosure and that only part of the record is being provided, after severance, which is not exempt from disclosure. While doing so, he should give the reasons for the decision, including any findings on any material question of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based. The Public Information Officer should take the approval of appropriate authority before supply of information in such a case and should inform the name and designation of the person giving the decision to the applicant also. Time Period for Supply of Information 18. The Public Information Officer should supply the information within thirty days of the receipt of the request. Where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same should be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request. If request for information is received through the APIO, the information may be provided within 35 days of receipt of application by the APIO in normal course and 48 hours plus 5 days in case the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person. 19. In case of an application transferred from one public authority to another public authority, reply should be provided by the concerned public authority within 30 days of the receipt of the application by that public authority in normal course and within 48 hours in case the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person. 20. The Public Information Officers of the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule of the Act may receive applications seeking information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Information in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, which is provided only after the approval of the Central Information Commission, should be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request. Time limit prescribed for supplying information in regard to allegations of corruption is the same as in other cases. 21. Where the applicant is asked to pay additional fee, the period intervening between the dispatch of the intimation about payment of fee and the payment of fee by the applicant shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of reply. The following table shows the maximum time which may be taken to dispose off the applications in different situations:

85

1. Supply of information in normal course. 30 days 2. Supply of information if it concerns the life or liberty of a person. 48 hours 3. Supply of information if the application is received through APIO. 05 days shall be added

to the time period indicated at Sr. No. 1 and 2. 4. Supply of information if application/request is received after transfer from another public

authority: (a) In normal course (b) In case the information concerns the life or liberty of a person.

(a) Within 30 days of the receipt of the application by the concerned public authority. (b) Within 48 hours of receipt of the application by the concerned public authority.

5. Supply of information by organizations specified in the Second Schedule:

(a) If information relates to allegations of violation of human rights. (b) In case information relates to allegations of corruption. (a) 45 days from the receipt of application. (b) Within 30 days of the receipt of application.

6. Supply of information if it relates to third party and the third party has treated it as confidential should be provided after following the procedure given in para 23 to 28 of this part of the document.

7. Supply of information where the applicant is asked to pay additional fee. The period

intervening between informing the applicant about additional fee and the payment of fee by the applicant shall be excluded for calculating the period of reply from the date of receipt of the notice by him, to make representation against the proposed disclosure, if any.

22. If the Public Information Officer fails to give decision on the request for information within the prescribed period, he shall be deemed to have refused the request. It is pertinent to note that if a public authority fails to comply with the specified time limit, the information to the concerned applicant would have to be provided free of charge.

Disclosure of Third Party Information

23. Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, is exempt from disclosure. Such information shall not be disclosed unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. 24. If an applicant seeks any information which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and that third party has treated that information as confidential, the Public Information Officer shall consider whether the information should be disclosed or not. The guiding principle in such cases is that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. However, the Public Information Officer would have to follow the following procedure before disclosing such information. 25. If the Public Information Officer intends to disclose the information, he shall within five days from the receipt of the application, give a written notice to the third party that the information has been sought by the applicant under the RTI Act and that he intends to disclose the information. He shall request the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information may be disclosed. The third party shall be given a time of ten days, Time limit for disposing off applications

86

26. The Public Information Officer shall make a decision regarding disclosure of the information keeping in view the submission of the third party. Such a decision should be taken within forty days from the receiptt of the request for information. After taking the decision, the Public Information Officer should give a notice of his decision to the third party in writing. The notice given to the third party should include a statement that the third party is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision. 27. The third party can prefer an appeal to the First Appellate Authority against the decision made by the Public Information Officer within thirty days from the date of the receipt of notice. If not satisfied with the decision of the First Appellate Authority, the third party can prefer a second appeal to the Information Commission. 28. If an appeal has been filed by the third party against the decision of the Public Information Officer to disclose the third party information, the information should not be disclosed till the appeal is decided. Suo Motu Disclosure 29. The Act makes it obligatory for every public authority to make suo-motu disclosure in respect of the particulars of its organization, functions, duties and other matters, as provided in section 4 of the Act. The information so published, according to sub-section (4) of section 4, should be easily accessible with the Public Information Officer in electronic form. The Public Information Officer should, therefore, make concerted efforts to ensure that the requirements of the Section 4 of the RTI Act 2005 are met and maximum information in respect of the public authority is made available on the internet. It would help him in two ways. First, the number of applications under the Act would be reduced and secondly, it would facilitate his work of providing information inasmuch as most of the information would be available to him at one place. Imposition of Penalty 30. An applicant under the Act has a right to appeal to the Information Commission and also to make complaint to the Commission. Where the Information Commission at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinionthat the Public Information Officer has without any reasonable cause, refusedIFto receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished subject to the condition that the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees. The Public Information Officer shall, however, be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him. The burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently and in case of denial of a request that such denial was justified shall be on the Public Information Officer. Disciplinary Action Against PIO 31. Where the Information Commission at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Public Information Officer has without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it may recommend disciplinary action against the Public Information Officer. Protection for Work Done in Good Faith 32. Section 21 of the Act provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under the Act or any rule

87

made thereunder. A Public Information Officer should, however, note that it would be his responsibility to prove that his action was in good faith. Annual Report of the CIC 33. The Central Information Commission prepares a report on the implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act every year, which is laid before each House of the Parliament. This report, inter-alia, has to include information about the number of requests made to each public authority, the number of decisions where the applicants were not entitled to access to documents requested for, the provisions of the Act under which these decisions were made and the number of times such provisions were invoked, the amount of charges collected by each public authority under the Act. Each Ministry/Department is required to collect such information from all the public authorities under its jurisdiction and send the same to the Commission. The Public Information Officers should maintain the requisite information in this regard so that it may be supplied to their administrative Ministry/Department soon after the end of the year, which in turn may supply to the Commission. Part IV - For Public Information Officers

Part V For First Appellate Authorities

It is the responsibility of the Public Information Officer of a public authority to supply correct and complete information within the specified time to any person seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005. There are possibilities that a Public Information Officer may not act as per provisions of the Act or an applicant may not otherwise be satisfied with the decision of the Public Information Officer. The Act contains provision of two appeals to tide over such situations. The first appeal lies within the public authority itself which is made to an officer designated as the First Appellate Authority by the concerned public authority. The First Appellate Authority happens to be an officer senior in rank to the Public Information Officer. The second appeal lies with the Information Commission. The Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 govern the procedure for deciding appeals by the Central Information Commission. First Appeal

The information sought by an applicant should either be supplied to him or his pplication should be rejected within the time prescribed by the Act. If additional fee need be charged from the applicant, communication in this regard should be sent to him within the time limit prescribed for sending information. If the applicant does not receive information or decision about rejection of request or communication about payment of additional fee within the specified time, he can make an appeal to the First Appellate Authority. Appeal can also be made if the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the Public Information Officer regarding supply of information or the quantum of fee decided by the Public Information Officer.

A third party can prefer an appeal to the First Appellate Authority if it is not satisfied with the decision made by the Public Information Officer about disclosure of the information for which it has objected. Such an appeal can be made within thirty days from the date of the receipt of notice from the Public Information Officer to the effect that he proposes to disclose the concerned information. If not satisfied with the decision of the First Appellate Authority, the third party can prefer the second appeal to the Information Commission. Disposal of Appeal

Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi-judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see to it that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been

88

done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.

If an appellate authority while deciding an appeal comes to a conclusion that the appellant should

be supplied information in addition to what has been supplied by the Public Information Officer, he may either (i) pass an order directing the Public Information Officer to give such information to the appellant; or (ii) he himself may give information to the appellant. In the first case the appellate authority should ensure that the information ordered by him to be supplied is supplied to the appellant immediately. It would, however, be better if the appellate authority chooses the second course of action and he himself furnishes the information alongwith the order passed by him in the matter.

If, in any case, the Public Information Officer does not implement the order passed by the

appellate authority and the appellate authority feels that intervention of higher authority is required to get his order implemented, he should bring the matter to the notice of the officer in the public authority competent to take action against the Public Information Officer. Such competent officer shall take necessary action so as to ensure implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Time Limit for Disposal of Appeal

The first appellate authority should dispose off the appeal within 30 days of receipt of the appeal. In exceptional cases, the Appellate Authority may take 45 days for its disposal. However, in cases where disposal of appeal takes more than 30 days, the Appellate Authority should record in writing the reasons for such delay. 2 Important CIC Decisions regarding Exemptions from

Disclosure of Information under RTI Act, 2005

The following CIC decisions interpreting the RTI Act 2005 give valuable clarification in applying exemptions and responding to the RTI applications seeking information relating to ongoing investigations:-

(1) Investigation into tax evasion can be said to be over or complete, only after the final adjudication about the tax liability had been made after the matter has gone through all the stages of appeals and revisions as well as a final decision about prosecuting or not prosecuting that person has been taken by an appropriate competent authority.

In the case of Shri Shanker Sharma and M/s. First Global Stock broking Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-II & CPIO, Deptt. of Income Tax, Mumbai (F. No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00007 dated 10.07.2007) the applicant had sought names and details of informer on the basis of whose information searches were conducted on Shanker Sharma and Devina Mehra by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation) on reasonable belief. Tax evasion is frequently a complex and elaborate process. The evader is often not a single person, but is part of an elaborate network, in which criminal elements - even mafia, are closely involved. The persons who supply information to the public authority about tax evaders are, no doubt, actuated by the lure of the rewards which come their way for successful identification of tax evasion. Yet, at the same time, such persons are also accepting grave risks to themselves and

89

their families. If their names and identities are disclosed, they can very well incur the wrath of the persons who suffer financially on account of the action by the public authority, as well as of the criminal elements who may be behind the scene operators. Divulging the source of the public authority’s information, on the basis of which such authority acts to recover the legitimate revenues of the State, would cripple the very functioning of this Department, and will have deleterious and long-lasting affect on its functioning as well as on the State’s revenues. The CPIO has pointed out that this matter was raised before the High Court by the same party in the same matter and the Court had firmly sided with the Income Tax Department in holding that the sources of information and files containing the notings of the Income Tax Department “are not required to be disclosed and privilege claimed by the respondents in that regard is accepted.” The ground for the Court to arrive at such a decision was sound and based upon a deep appreciation of the functioning and the purpose of the public authority, as well as the mechinations of those who find themselves at the receiving end of law enforcement by such designated public authorities. Any tampering with the established system is fraught with unforeseen and potentially destructive consequences for the entire edifice of the public authority.

The respondents’ response is that this averment of the appellants is not correct. The term “investigation” in the case of Income Tax Department includes not only initial investigation but all subsequent actions which included all levels of appeals and final determination of the Income Tax liability based upon the initial investigation. Till that has been completed no investigation can be said to be complete in its true sense. He also urged that a decision as to whether or not to prosecute the person investigated against, is taken only after all the above-mentioned stages of investigation are completed. Any disclosure of the information connected with the initial investigation, at any stage prior to final conclusion of prosecution, if any, would be detrimental to the public authority’s case. He cautioned against taking an overtly mechanical view about completion of investigation as urged by the appellants. He also added that in matters of Police actions, very often there is a symmetrical progression of investigation and prosecution, with clearly defined limits. This is not so in matters of the so-called white-collar-crimes, which Income Tax evasions mostly are. Actions here are not so well defined and are often running to and fro till the final picture emerges and a final decision is taken about prosecuting or not prosecuting a given person who may have been investigated against.

DISCUSSIONS:

The respondents have cogently and persuasively argued that the information as requested by the appellant, for the reasons stated by the respondents, comes within the ambit of the exemptions under Section 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Both these Sections prohibit disclosure of information connected with ongoing investigations and prosecutions and, information disclosure of which would compromise the source of the information of law enforcement authorities and could jeopardize the life or physical safety of those providing such tip-offs. There is a strong case that information connected with such law enforcement work by a public authority must be provided requisite protection from disclosure in view of its

90

uncontested impact on the functioning of the public authority and, in that sense, all general law enforcing agencies. The RTI Act has very thoughtfully restricted access to information in such matters. The point made by the appellants that the investigation in the matter should be construed to be over, has been persuasively rebutted by the respondents. It will be pertinent to mention that Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts an information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The Act, however, does not define either the term “investigation” or “process of investigation”. The Code of Criminal Procedure basically makes a distinction between an investigation”, “inquiry” and “trial” and all the three terms denote three different stages of a criminal case. The first stage is reached when a police officer investigates into a case. After completing the investigation, when the case is sent to a Magistrate, the next stage begins, which is either an inquiry or a trial. As has been held by the Apex Court in the Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan (AIR 1994 SC 1775), the word “investigation” cannot be limited only to police investigation but includes the “investigation” carried on by any agency whether he be a police officer or empowered or authorized officer invested with the power of investigation. The expression “inquiry” as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure is of wide import and takes in every proceedings other than a trial conducted by a Magistrate. Thus, the term ‘investigation’ used in Section 8(1)(h), in the context of this Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally. We cannot import into RTI Act the technical definition of ‘investigation’ one finds in Criminal Law. Here, investigation would mean all actions of law enforcement, disciplinary proceedings, enquiries, adjudications and so on. Logically, no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is taken. In that sense, an investigation can be an extended investigation. In the case of the Income Tax Department investigation into tax evasion can be said to be over or complete, only after the final adjudication about the tax liability had been made after the matter has gone through all the stages of appeals and revisions as well as a final decision about prosecuting or not prosecuting that person has been taken by an appropriate competent authority. The respondents are, therefore, right in holding that it would be a misnomer to hold that investigation in matters such as this, the moment the Investigating Officer submits his report to the competent authority spells the end of investigation. DECISION: The CPIO also explained, at great length, as to how the Department creates a database of its informants and sources, and code-names them so that their identities can be a strictly guarded secret. This is not known even to officers within the public authority, except those who may be directly dealing with the matter. To disclose the nature of the information even after deleting from it the names of the specific sources of the informant, can potentially damage the entire system. I agree with this reasoning.

In consideration of the above, the appeals are rejected.

91

(2) Once it is established that a certain information requested by an applicant is related to a quasi-judicial proceedings, RTI Act cannot be invoked to access the information related to that proceeding.

In the case of Shri Vijay Kamble Vs Customs Department, Mumbai (F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01466 dated 23.03.2009), the appellant asked for copies of show cause notices and other documents relating to the proceedings by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and currently under adjudication by the Commissioner of Customs (Exports). CPIO and the Appellate Authority declined to disclose the information variously citing Sections 8(1)d, 8(1)(h) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

In their comments filed before the Commission, respondents have reiterated their point that the subject matter of this RTI-query was regarding evidence in an ongoing investigation conducted by Commissioner of Customs (Exports). Disclosure of any information at this stage would hamper the current investigation. During the hearing, respondents submitted that any process of investigation needs to be protected from intrusive intervention of third-parties claiming to be do-gooders. Unless the investigation is allowed to be conducted in the letter and spirit of the law in this case the Customs Act and if unconnected persons are allowed to intervene in the proceeding through intrusive enquiries, it would be difficult to maintain the integrity of the investigative process, expose the investigating and the adjudicating officers to external influences and duress and prevent them from concentrating on the case on hand. They also pointed out during the hearing that the adjudicating process was a quasi-judicial proceeding and in terms of the full Bench decision of the Commission (Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT); Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00586; Date of Decision: 18.09.2007), it is beyond the scope of the RTI Act. If intervention for disclosure of information germane to an ongoing adjudication process is allowed, it will lead to questions being asked about proceedings before judicial courts and even the superior Courts. This should go against the scheme of separation of powers under the Constitution of India.

Certain key aspects of this particular appeal relating to the information are: (i) the information is relating to a current adjudication proceedings before the Commissioner exports; (ii) matter was investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, where after it was transferred to the Commissioner (Exports) for further adjudication; (iii) the adjudication proceedings are presently going on; (iv) the information relates to twelve third-parties, seven of which have objected to its disclosure on the ground of these items of information being their commercial confidence besides being personal to them; (v) Commissioner Customs (Export) has issued show cause notices to all 12 parties as a prelude to conduct the adjudication and (vi) matter has been hanging fire since 1998.

DECISION:

Both appellant and respondents have brought-forth multiple aspects of this case in the context of the provisions of the RTI Act. The principal factor, which needs to be addressed, nevertheless, is whether the proceedings before Commissioner of Customs admittedly a quasijudicial proceeding would admit of action under the RTI

92

Act. It has been the decision of the Commission in Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT); Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00586; Date of Decision: 18.09.2007 that once it is established that a certain information requested by an applicant is related to a quasi-judicial proceeding, RTI Act cannot be invoked to access the information related to that proceeding. That full Bench decision is entirely applicable to the present case. In view of this, it will not be possible for me to allow disclosure of the requested information. Appeal disposed of with these directions.

(3) Appellant can not take recourse to the RTI Act to challenge a judicial decision regarding disclosure of a given set of information.

In the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) (Appeal NO.CIC/AT/A/2006/00586; Date of Decision: 18.09.2007), it was held that Judicial Authority must function with total independence and freedom, should it be found that the action initiated under the RTI Act impinges upon the authority of that Judicial body, the Commission will not authorize the use of RTI Act for any such disclosure requirement.

The information sought by the Appellant raises a very important question about whether under the Right to Information Act it is permissible to access information held by another public authority which acts in a judicial capacity, especially when the information pertains to its orders in that judicial proceeding and actions related thereto. There may be other similar Tribunals whose orders and records could similarly be sought to be accessed through the Right to Information Act. This matter should, therefore, be considered by the Full Bench of the Commission. Appellant said that public interest in disclosure of this information is overriding. In every judicial proceeding, every thing should be transparent and open in order to curb corruption. Limited disclosure by the ITAT is potential generator of corruption. The more the transparency the less is the corruption. The Appellant said that there has been rampant theft of tax amounting to thousands of crore of rupees and although he had filed more than 20 RTI applications but he had got no information. In reply to the arguments of the appellant, the respondents submitted that they have objected to the very maintainability of the appeal and submitted that it should be rejected on this score alone. However, on the appellant narrowing down his request for information, the Registry was directed to provide certified true copies of order in case Appeal Case No. ITAT No.567/Del/2005 pertaining to Escorts Ltd. So far as inspection of all the records mentioned in his

RTI request was concerned, it was informed to the appellant that a decision on similar request is pending before the CIC which is a superior authority and they are waiting for the CIC’s direction in the matter. Respondents also pointed out that the appellant vide his letter dated 4.9.2006 did not press for his last request relating to examination of minutes maintained by the Members of the ITAT. If in spite of the decision of the ITAT, PIO had supplied the information, he would have committed contempt of the Tribunal.

93

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

I. Whether this Commission, under the Right to Information Act, can order the ITAT to disclose information which that Tribunal has decided not to disclose under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time and rules made thereunder?

II. Whether the RTI Act applies to a judicial proceeding and, if so, does it override the existing law concerning dissemination of information in respect of a judicial proceeding?

III. Whether the information, which the respondents say are prohibited under the Income Tax Act can be given under the Right to Information Act?

DISCUSSIONS:

In the instant case, the appellant has asked for a copy of the daily proceedings minutes maintained by the members of the Bench tried by the ITAT in appeal case No.ITA 567/Del/05. The CPIO in the instant case has replied that the daily minutes maintained by the members of the Bench are a part of the judicial proceedings and is meant only for the use of the members of the Tribunal. Admittedly, the proceedings before the Tribunal are judicial. Apparently, all judicial proceedings are conducted in open and transparency is the hallmark in case of all such proceedings. There is no element of secrecy whatsoever. But at the same time, it has to be borne in mind that the judiciary is independent and all judicial authorities including all courts and tribunals must work independently and without any interference insofar as their judicial work is concerned. The independence of a judicial authority is all pervasive and any amount of interference is neither desirable nor should ever be encouraged in any manner. The appellant in the instant case wanted the minutes of the proceedings maintained by the learned members of the Tribunal which can only be the notes prepared by them while conducting the hearing or otherwise. 45. The respondents have drawn our attention to the following observations made by Hon’ble Justice Vivian Bose in Surendra Singh v State of UP (AIR 1954 Supreme Court 194):

“Judges may, and often do, discuss the matter among themselves and reach a tentative conclusion. That is not their judgment. They may write and exchange drafts. Those are not the judgments either, however heavily and often they may have been signed. The final operative act is that which is formally declared in open court with the intention of making it the operative decision of the court. That is what constitutes the ‘judgment’...”

Those observations, though made in a different context, highlight the status of the proceedings that take place before the actual delivery of the judgment. If according to the Supreme Court even the draft judgments, though heavily and often signed and exchanged, are not to be considered as final judgments but only tentative views liable to change, the jottings and notes made by the judges while hearing a case can never, and by no stretch of imagination, be treated as final views expressed by them on the

94

case. Such noting cannot therefore be held to be part of a record ‘held’ by the public authority. Any intrusion in regard to the judicial work even under the Right to Information Act is unnecessary. We are satisfied that at the level of appellate authority the appellant agreed not to press for this request. The position generally being so, in the present case, the question is when the power of disclosure of certain information is vested exclusively in a properly constituted judicial body, such as the ITAT, should the disclosure of the same information be made a subject to be determined under the RTI Act. In our view, it is not so. The independence of the judicial authority flows from the discretion given to that authority to take all decisions in matters properly brought within the purview of that authority. For example, the ITAT, as a judicial body, is also entrusted with the power to authorize disclosure or non-disclosure of a given set of information such as the information asked for by the appellant in the present appeal. In our understanding, it should not be necessary to separate the function of disclosure of information from the general function of that judicial body. In other words, it would not be appropriate for the Commission or any entity functioning as part of the RTI-regime, to pronounce on the disclosure of a given set of information, if it is found that under another law (such as the Income Tax Act), this disclosure function is exercisable as part of the judicial function by a judicial authority, such as the ITAT. DECISION: It is our conclusion, therefore, that given that a judicial authority must function with total independence and freedom, should it be found that an action initiated under the RTI Act impinges upon the authority of that judicial body, the Commission will not authorize the use of the RTI Act for any such disclosure requirement. Section 8(1) (b) of the RTI Act is quite clear, which gives a total discretion to the court or the tribunal to decide as to what should be published. An information seeker should, therefore, approach the concerned court or the tribunal if he intends to have some information concerning a judicial proceeding and it is for the concerned court or the tribunal to take a decision in the matter as to whether the information requested is concerning judicial proceedings either pending before it or decided by it can be given or not. The appellant through his request under the Right to Information Act has sought a copy of the decision of the tribunal in the said appeal case decided by the tribunal. He has also wanted to inspect the case records. CPIO in his reply stated that copies of the order and the inspection of the records can be given and inspection of the case record can be allowed only to the concerned parties or the representatives duly authorized in this behalf. The first appellate authority on the other hand has directed a copy of the order of the tribunal to be given to the appellant but as regards the inspection, no decision has been passed by the appellate authority. However, at the time of hearing, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that Rule 35 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 provides that an order of the tribunal after it is signed shall be communicated only to the assessee and the Commissioner of Income Tax and there is no provision to give a copy thereof to any other person. Insofar as the inspection of the records is concerned, it has been placed before the Commission that there is an order by the Bench of the ITAT not to allow inspection to the appellant. However, copy of the order has not been filed before us.

95

(4) Information can not be disclosed till the investigations are over.Shri Vinod Kumar Jain V/s Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000969/SS

The Appellant sought the detail of complete proceedings / records of the investigation being carried out against the appellant with regard to enquiry in to the Lakhanpur and Bhanuth / Shambhu check posts in J & K and Punjab respectively as the SCN in the matter has been issued and the investigations are complete. The CPIO denied the information to the Appellant under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 by stating that the investigation in the matter are still pending in view of Hon’ble CIC’s decision in the case of Shri Shankar Sharma and M/s First Global Stock broking Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Directorate of Income Tax, Mumbai.

DISCUSSIONS:

The Commission has carefully considered the submissions of the parties. The primary contention of the Appellant is that the investigation is deemed to be complete and the exception under section 8(1) (h) is not attracted. We find no merit in such contention raised by the appellant. On the other hand, we do find that there is substance in the contention of the Respondent. The Commission concurs with the detailed order passed by the FAA of the Respondent and we also confirm our earlier order (supra) passed on this same issue where it was categorically held by one of the Learned Information Commissioners that: Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00007/ dated 10.7.2007 “the term ‘investigation’ used in Section 8(1)(h), in the context of this Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally. We cannot import into RTI Act the technical definition of ‘investigation’ one finds in Criminal Law. Here, investigation would mean all actions of law enforcement, disciplinary proceedings, enquiries, adjudications and so on. Logically, no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is taken.” Thus, Commission sees no reason to interfere with the order passed by the FAA of the Respondent and hence the same is upheld. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(5) Information can not be disclosed if action for prosecution of offenders is initiated, being exempt under Section 8(1) (h).

In the Case of Shri Vinod Kumar Vs Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000910/SS dated 31.05.2011), the appellant sought information on four RTI queries pertaining to investigation relating to alleged fraudulent availment of CENVAT Credit against M/s Trusine Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. The information was denied under u/s 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act by the CPIO. Aggrieved by the decision of CPIO, the appellant preferred first-appeal before the first Appellate Authority. The first Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.7.2010 upheld the decision of CPIO.

96

DECISION:

The respondents submitted before the Hon’ble CIC that DGCEI conducted investigation relating to fraudulent availment of CENVAT Credit on forged documents against M/s Trusine Electronics Pvt. Ltd. During the course of investigation the officers recorded statements of various persons and drew panchnamas of the searches carried out at various places. The appellant voluntarily deposited an amount of Rs.1 crore during investigations. The case has now been adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II confirming the Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 5,01,69,276/- and imposing a penalty of an equivalent amount on the company. A penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs has also been imposed on the Director of the Company Shri Vinod Kumar for his complicity in abetment of preparing forged documents. The respondents are in the process of filing charge-sheet for initiation of proceedings under Cr. P.C. Hence, the information sought is exempt under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents on file, the Commission found no reason to disagree with the replies of the respondents. The replies of respondents upheld. The matter was disposed of accordingly at Commission’s end.

(6) Information can not be disclosed to an offender against whom prosecution under Cr PC is lodged in the court of law.

Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/000684 Shri L.S. Chandalia V/s Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi. The appellant filed RTI application seeking certified copies of file notings pertaining to a show cause notice served to the appellant and others. The appellant who was the then Superintendent of Central Excise Range, Bhiwani had colluded with the Bhiwani Textile Mills, in order to extend ineligible benefit available to the composite mill. The CPIO denied information u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, stating that the present case has not yet been finalized. The FAA upheld the decision of CPIO with the observation that the investigation into tax evasion can be said to be over or complete, only after the final adjudication about the tax liability had been made after the matter has gone through all the stages of appeals and revisions as well as a final decision about prosecuting or not prosecuting that person has been taken by an appropriate competent authority. Divulging such information may cripple the very functioning of the Department, as in such a situation the officer and the informer have the danger of being exposed to such evaders who often have elaborate network involving criminal elements.

DISCUSSIONS:

The appellant who was Range Supdt Incharge at the material time was involved in a deliberate and conscious attempt to extend undue benefit as a composite mill to the said Textile Mill, for which they were otherwise not eligible. This fact has been upheld by the adjudication authority in its adjudication order. Accordingly the case has been found fit for prosecution and DG, CEI has accorded sanction for prosecution of

97

Offender Company and the appellant. After hearing the respondent, perusing the relevant documents on file and above submissions of the respondent, the Commission finds no reason to interfere with the replies of respondent. The replies of respondent are upheld. The matter is accordingly disposed of at Commission’s end.

(7) Public authority cannot be obligated to explain its process of investigation and decision making to the litigant with whom it is engaged in a legal matter.

In the case of Shri Milap Choraria V/s CBDT(No.CIC/AT/C/2008/00025 dated 27-7-2009), the appellant sought the information regarding file containing decisions pertaining to the applicant himself and hence personal in nature. The inspection of this file had no relationship to any public activity or interest. The matter being wholly personal to the applicant attracts exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the appellant, taking the broad meaning of the term “public interest”, argued that every act of a Public officer was in “public interest”. The respondents on the other hand have argued that the question of applicability of Section 8 (1) (j) mandates disclosure only when larger public interest so justified and must be read in the context of Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Public Authority submitted that a public officer could not be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence when he considered that public interest would suffer by such disclosure. This means that the existence or otherwise of public interest is to be determined by the officer concerned. The learned counsel also argued that under Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, no public servant could be permitted to give any evidence derived from any public official or public records relating to affairs of the State except with the permission of the Head of Department. The decision to disseminate information concerning official matters, therefore, was required to be taken by the Head of Department and not by the CPIO. He submitted that disclosure of the 13information asked for by the appellant would be prejudicial to public interest and, therefore, attracted the bar under Section 8(1)(j) read with Sections 123, 124 and 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

I. A public officer cannot be compelled to disclose a communication made to him in official confidence when he considers that the public interest would suffer by such disclosure — Whether provisions of Sections 123, 124 and 129 of the Indian Evidence Act stand overridden by non-obstante clause appearing in Section 22 of the RTI Act?

II. Can a Public Authority claim exemption from disclosure by invoking Section 11(1) of the RTI Act?

III. Whether a Public Authority is obliged to disclose everything even though the said disclosure is considered to be contrary to public interest?

98

DISCUSSIONS:

If a public authority takes a position that a certain information should be held to be non-disclosable under Section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, it will hold good only so long as the relevant Section of the RTI Act also allows the public authority to withhold such information in public interest. In other words, if within the meaning of the RTI Act, information is to be disclosed in public interest and if the same information is held confidential in public interest within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act, then the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act shall be inconsistent with the RTI Act. There may be circumstances, however, where, as in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, a personal information can be held to be non-disclosable unless warranted by public interest. If such personal information is also held confidential under any Section of the Indian Evidence Act on grounds of public interest, there shall be perfect compatibility / harmony between that withholding of the information or any order to withhold the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The sum-total of the respondents’ arguments, therefore, is that appellant has tried to conflate his personal interest with public interest in order to force the public authority to share with him all that it knows confidentially about how it wished to defend its position in the law suit by the appellant. The respondents have derived strength from Sections 123, 124 and 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, which authorize them under certain circumstances to withhold from public disclosure information held by the officers of the public authority in confidence, except when public interest warrants such disclosure. This present appeal raises, apart from others, a larger issue, which is the rights and the liabilities of a public authority as a party to a litigation. If the interpretation of the RTI law by the appellant is to be accepted, it would mean that even when the Government is litigating vis-a-vis another person, that person will have the right to access all information about how the Government is seeking to defend its position in the legal proceeding without having any corresponding right to access similar information of the opposite party. On any scale of equity, this will appear to be biased against the public authority. Before the enactment of the RTI Act, such public authorities received protection to its position and the information held by it was exempt from disclosure in any suit or legal proceeding, under several provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, which have been mentioned in para 16 above. Now, with the advent of the RTI Act it is, arguably, no more possible for such public authority to hold its side of information and evidence from being directly accessed by the opposite party except for exemptions contained in RTI Act. In normal course, the Government as well as the opposite party would have produced their evidences and arguments before the court of law, who would have then decided how to allow the evidence to be shared between the parties and at what stage. Now, private litigants are choosing to invoke RTI Act in order to equip themselves in advance about the position taken or likely to be taken by the public authority in an ongoing litigation in order to counter it .It will need to be examined whether such interpretation of the RTI Act is possible D i.e. to allow a party to a litigation to access the other party’s (which in this case happens to be a public authority) evidence and stated position in order to build his own case against that position.

The point for consideration before us is whether the public authority can hold

99

confidentially its side of the information and the internal deliberations it may have had in order to put up its case before a court and whether it is obliged to disclose all this information to the very person whom it intends contesting in the court of law. In the present case, the reason offered by the public authority for not disclosing the information held by them was that they were disinclined to share with the very person they were engaged in a litigation or who seeks to engage the public authority in litigation, the information which they hold and which they have internally processed through consultations with others, such as the legal advisers, officers of the department, etc. The public authority does not want to share with the appellant any information about ‘which officer of the public authority took what position in recording his notes on the file vis-a-vis the appellant’s Section 80 CPC notice. They are also disinclined to disclose the advice they have received from legal sources. They doubt the motive of the appellant in seeking to access this information which they believe seeks to inflict harm on the very public authority through whose avenue the litigant is seeking the information to be disclosed. It is the claim of the public authority that under the law of the land, they are obliged to produce the evidence only before a law court and are under no obligation to share it in advance with the appellant who is seeking to engage the public authority in a legal proceeding. They have argued that if this line is accepted, serious harm shall be inflicted on the government and the public authority’s ability to safeguard public interest, against intrusive action by self-seeking litigants. A public authority is duty-bound to defend its officers’ bona-fide interest as well as its own interest in any litigation with the opposite party, and if it is forced to submit to that opposite party’s demand for all information about, what decision was taken to defend the government’s interest; what evidence was marshalled and how the evidence was collected and the decision made, would irretrievably damage the public authority’s interest as litigant and compromise its ability to carry out its mandate of defending the public 22authority though its actions. A public authority must not be obligated to explain its conduct by revealing the entire decision making process to the very litigant with whom it may be engaged in a dispute D legal or otherwise. In our view, respondents have persuasively argued that under Section 11(1) of the Act, there are compelling grounds for them to hold confidential information relating to how they wished to defend their legal position in litigation or a threatened litigation. Their reference to the violation of the norms of equity in allowing the very person, who seeks to drag the public authority to court, all information about how the public authority wishes to defend itself is also quite convincing. In our view, appellant has failed to cite any public interest that would commend superseding the protected interest in the matter of disclosure of the requested information, within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The appeal petition, therefore, fails scrutiny and is dismissed. (8) When investigations are in progress, documents can not be disclosed. In the case of Dr. B.L. Malhotra Vs. The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (No. 783/IC(A)2007 dated 06.06.2007), the appellant asked for the information which contained material pertaining to corruption involving the appellant, some others officers of respondent and a few business concerns. The major portion of investigation were still pending/or was contemplated. The information was denied under Section

100

8(1)(h) by the CPIO. DECISION:

The information sought contains the details of the individuals as well as business organizations, which are involved in the alleged corruption. The investigation process is in progress and is also contemplated against some other officers and business concern. In view of this, the exemption claimed U/S 8(1)(h) from disclosure of information is justified.

(9) Information on ongoing investigation (Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act) In the case of Ravinder Kumar vs. B.S. Bassi, Joint Commissioner, Police (F.No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00004, dated 30.06.2006), the applicant had sought details regarding the progress of an investigation of a case by the police.

DECISION:

The CIC dismissed the appeal relating to the disclosure of information. It ruled that the disclosure of information, in cases under investigation by the police was exempted, according to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It is justified not to disclose information in cases of ongoing police investigations (which have not yet been completed), because such a disclosure could hamper the investigation process, the Commission held.

(10) No disclosure of third-party confidential information (Section 8(1 )(j) of the RTI Act)

In the case of A.P. Singh vs. Punjab National Bank (Appeal No. 12/IC(A)/2006, dated 14.3.2006) the appellant had sought information regarding the bank account of another person with whom the applicant had no professional or business relationship.

This information was refused to the applicant by the public authority.

DECISION: The CIC held that a bank is under duty to maintain the secrecy of accounts of its customers, who are also third party.

The CIC further held in this case that since the applicant had not established any bona fide public interest in having access to the information sought nor did he have any association or business relationship with the company (bank), his appeal cannot be accepted in terms of the law as provided in Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.

101

(11) Disclosure in case of pending departmental enquiry (Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act)

In the case of Sarvesh Kaushal Vs. F.C.I and others (Appeal Nos. 243 /ICPB /2006 and 244 / ICPB /2006, dated 27.12.2006), the appellant had applied for documents relating to the departmental enquiry launched against him in a corruption case. The CIC, rejecting the appeal, held that the departmental enquiry, which was in progress against him, was a pending investigation under law, and the same attracted the provisions of Section 8(1)(h). Therefore, there is no question of disclosing any information relating to his prosecution, the CIC noted. (12) Public authority to disclose information if public interest out weighs the harm to the protected interests (Section 8 (1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act).

In the case of S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi (Appeal No. CIC / WB/A/20060523, dated 26.3.2007), the appellant had sought a copy of the letter received by the public authority regarding his suspension, from the CBI, which was investigating the case.

The public authority replied that the information requested by the applicant was exempted from disclosure by virtue of Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

DECISION:

The Commission, rejecting the appeal of the applicant, held that the exemptions from disclosing information, under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as well as under the relevant provisions of the Official Secrets Act, would apply. The Commission further said that if the public authority, decides that public interest in the disclosure outweigh the harm to the protected interests, it can disclose the information, which was not the position in this case. (13) The information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information.

In the case of Dr. K.C. Vijayakumaran Nair Vs Department of Post, the appellant had sought following information. The name of the officer who raised the query as to whether the appellant had taken permission of the respondent for joining a Ph.D. course; and The name of the officer who took the decision to relieve the appellant while he was posted at Shimla and whether the officer was competent to take such decision. He had also sought 'file notings’ with respect to the above. The CPIO informed him that his relieving order was issued in compliance with the orders of DG (Posts). As regards disclosure of 'file notings’, the information was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, on the ground that 'file notings’ was confidential. The appellant made his first appeal and the appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO.

102

DECISION:

The information sought has been furnished, except the 'file notings’ with regard to the official who raised the query as to whether the appellant had obtained the official permission for doing the Ph.D course. The part of 'file notings’ containing the orders of the DG (Posts) for relieving him from the post, the then held by the appellant has been similarly denied. The 'file notings’ in the instant case, contain information relating to transfer/posting. The competent authority of the respondent may have taken the decision keeping in view of the overall interests of the respondent. It is, therefore, not for any employee, how-so-ever he may be affected, to know as to why or how the decision was taken by the competent authority. The disclosure of such information is not in the public interest as the appellant has asked for the information for promotion of his personal interest. Therefore, the CPIO is justified in denying the information sought, u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act.

The information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. Unfortunately, a large number of the government employees are seeking information for promotion of their personal interest. This is done on the pretext of serving the public cause, without realizing the extent of distortions that it causes in use of public resources due to putting up frivolous applications by them for self-interest. This appeal is in no way exception. In the instant case, the information seeker and the provider being part of the same system should work together for evolving approaches to remove irritants in their mutual interaction, as a lot of public resources devoted to provide service to the entire Indian community is thus un-productively used. They ought to exercise restraints in misusing the Act, lest they should dilute the mandate of RTI Act to empower the common man.

(14) Disclosure of personal information of employee are exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In the case of Shri Vibhor Dileep Barla Vs. Brig. S.C. Nair, DDGPI & CPIO & Lt. Gen. I.J. Koshy, Appellate Authority, Army Headquaters, New Delhi-110011, the appellant sought details about a certain Lt. Col. Kishore Chandrakant Gupte who allegedly claimed to be a Retired Lieutenant Colonel and, as stated by the appellant, “dealt in sale of Plot No.63, located at Survey No.244, Pathardi, Nashik, Maharashtra and completed the sale without the permission of the Collector which is a requisite for a sale of the said-plot.” The appellant believes that there is no Lt. Col Kishore Chandrakant Gupte and the transaction conducted in his name was a benami one. He contends that ‘Gupte’ and ‘Gupta’ are often used inter-changeably in Maharashtra Region as surnames. It is the information of the appellant that there is an officer answering to the name Kishore Chandrakant Gupte in Army records. The appellant would like to confirm whether he is the same person as Lt.Col Kishore Chandrakant Gupta. The appellant aims to unearth whether there was any attempt at impersonation in the matter of land transaction by certain Army personnel.

103

The appellant’s plea was turned down by both the AA and the CPIO on the ground of it attracting the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. According to them, it is not the Army’s business to confirm or deny the appellant’s suspicion about the true identity of a person who enters into some land deal somewhere in the country. The appellant countered the reasoning of the AA and the CPIO by saying that the information he has sought has nothing to do with any invasion of privacy of any individual. What he has attempted to elicit is whether the Kishore Chandrakant Gupte or Kishore Chandrakant Gupta is actually the Army officer who entered into the alleged land deal in Nashik.

DECISION:

The appellant has sought to put the RTI to an ingenious use, i.e. confirming an identity of an employee of a public authority in the context of a similar sounding name which is entered in the land records pursuant to a land transaction. He has urged that he is serving a higher purpose, i.e. restoring the honour and the image of the Army in the eyes of the people by exposing a possible case of impersonation by one of its officers. The type of information the appellant has solicited, reduced to the norms of the RTI Act, amounts to disclosing to him particulars of the employment of a specific officer of the Army, serving or retired. The short-point for consideration before the Commission is whether Section 8(1)(j) is attracted to this type of information. In the present case, there is no tangible public purpose which has been cited by the appellant that would convince the Commission to override the guaranteed exemption under Section 8(1)(j) to the individual. A mere suspicion cannot constitute the basis for a public interest. In case the appellant feels that a fraud has really been committed or the Army was derelict in matters of strict observance of the Conduct Rules, he may approach the forums which have been statutorily assigned with the task of addressing such allegations. In my view, there is no infirmity in the interpretation of Section 8(1)(j) by the AA and the CPIO. The orders of the subordinate authorities are upheld. (15) There is no justification at this stage to interfere with the process of Disciplinary Proceedings, which is a quasi-judicial function. The denial of information sought under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 is therefore justified.

In the case of Shri B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts, (Decision No. 92/IC(A)/2007 F. No.CIC/PB/A/2007/00405 dated, 20.06.2007, the appellant who was the main offender in the fraud case sought certain information regarding Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against him.

The CPIO refuse to provide the documents asked for under Section 8(1)(h) & (g) of the RTI Act, 2005. He has however informed the appellant that all the copies of the documents on the basis of which chargesheet memo was prepared would be furnished as per the provision laid down under the CCS (CCA) Rules.

104

DECISION:

A disciplinary action against the appellant is contemplated on the basis of the chargesheet memo issued to him under the CCS (CCA) Rules. Under the relevant provision, he is entitled for all the documents that are favourable to him for effective defense. There is therefore no justification at this stage to interfere with the process of disciplinary proceedings, which is a quasi-judicial function. The denial of information sought, u/s 8(1) (h) of the Act is therefore justified.

(16) RTI cannot be turned into tool for Vendetta by an employee against organization for some grievances.

In the case of Smt. Uma Kanti & Shri Ramesh Chandra Vs. Navodaya Vidhyalaya (No. CIC/OK/C/2007/00362 & 367 dated 5.01.2008). The appellant sought information/documents on 375 items regarding various issues pertaining to the Department. No information was furnished by the CPIO.

DECISION:

The Appellant moved the Information Commission in a complaint that his RTI-application of 19 March 2007 had not been responded to. During the hearing, the Respondents stated that although the Appellant had moved the Commission with a single appeal, the RTI-application referred to by him had not been received by them nor had they received the prescribed fees. However, there were a number of other cases filed by the couple. These applications, filed by him and his wife, ran into over 188 pages which contained 375 items on which information was sought. In addition, they had enclosed 141 pages of proforma in which they wanted the information to be supplied. The Respondents during the hearing brought to the notice of the Commission these various RTI- applications which the Commission noticed were actually thick piles of papers containing questions and proforma. Moreover, the information sought by the Appellants was spread over 20 years and concerned thousands of employees. Thus, for instance, they had asked for disclosure of ACRs of an entire group of staff members, and things like scooter advances, allotment of staff quarters, timetables of various schools, details of the court cases since 1996, details of payments made to officers since 1996, etc. This is perhaps the worst case to have come to this bench showing the worst misuse of the RTI-Act. The Commission directs the Respondents not to consider the RTI-applications filed by this Appellant and his wife since the RTI cannot be turned into a tool for vendetta of an employee against his Organisation for some grievance that one harbours against it. The present case is an example to the ridiculous length to which a person can take a beneficial piece of legislation and make a mockery of it.

The Commission feels that this case together with some others like Shri Faqir Chand Vs. North Western Railway, Bikaner (No.CIC/OK/A/2007/00951) show the necessity of some provision in the RTI-Act for taking punitive action against the Appellants who seek to misuse the RTI-Act in such a blatant fashion.

105

(17) Disclosure of information to a person involved and responsible for contributing to the fraud is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

In the case of Mr. M.B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts the appellant sought information regarding frauds committed by one Shri Ravanan SPM, Uttukottai SO, and nature of action taken against all identified subsidiary offenders figuring in the fraud. The CPIO informed the appellant that information sought could not be complied as they are exempted from the RTI Act since the matter is sub-judice. The Appellate Authority also supported the decision of the SPOs. Documents requested by the appellant in fact relate to the investigation of the fraud case, in which the appellant has been identified as one of the subsidiary offender responsible for contributing to the fraud. I find that the CPIO & AA have rightly denied the information by invoking provision of Sec. 8 (1) (h). I also hold that the disclosure of this information would impede the process of investigation and the information need not be disclosed to the appellant. Accordingly I see no merit in the second appeal filed before the Commission and is the same is rejected.

(18) Frivolous applications not to be entertained

In the case of S.K. Lal vs. Ministry of Railways (Appeal No. CIC /OK /A / 2006 /00268-272, dt: 29.12.2006) the applicant had filed five applications to the railway authorities asking for “ all the records” regarding various services and categories of staff in the Railways. The public authority, however, did not provide him with the information requested. DECISION:

The Central Information Commission observed that though the RTI Act allows citizen to seek any information other than the 10 categories exempted under Section 8, it does not mean that the public authorities are required to entertain to all sort of frivolous applications. The CIC held that asking for “all the records” regarding various services and categories of staff in the railways, “only amounts to making a mockery of the Act.”

(19) Can the CPIO appeal against the First Appellate Authority?

In the case of Sh. V.R. Eliza, CPIO Vs Central Board of Excise & Customs (Decision no. CIC/AT/A/2008/00291 dt. 05.03.2008) the CPIO filed an appeal in the Commission against the order passed by First Appellate Authority of his own department. The interesting issue as to whether the CPIO can go in appeal against his FAA was considered by the Commission and a decision given that 'Yes' he can.

106

DECISION: Commission observed that Section 19 of the Act provides for an appeal by a person who is aggrieved with the decision of a CPIO. The first appeal is to be preferred to an officer senior in rank to the CPIO in the official hierarchy in the same Public Authority. Apparently, this right of appeal can be availed only by a citizen making an application seeking certain information or by another person who is aggrieved with the decision of the CPIO concerning disclosure of information. Such an aggrieved person may be a third party. Section 19(2) makes an explicit mention of an appeal by the concerned third party. Technically speaking, even a Public Authority can also be aggrieved with the decision of the PIO and can appeal against the decision of the CPIO as u/s 2(n) of the RTI Act, “third party” includes “Public Authority”. Section 19(3) of the RTI Act deals with a second appeal Sub Section (3) of Section 19 of the RTI Act reads as under Section19(3):

A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

From the above, it is clear that a 2nd appeal is against the decision under Sub- Section 1 and any person who is aggrieved with this decision can approach the Commission and submit an appeal. This aggrieved person could be a PIO or a 3rd party or even a Public Authority as 3rd party. The Act does not debar a 2nd appeal either by the PIO or by a Public Authority. (20) Decision, whether or not to disclose this report can be best taken by the higher formation and not the officers below.

In the case of Shri Rajesh Mannalal Katariya Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune, the appellant sought information regarding confidential reports submitted by lower formations to higher formations, which was denied by the respondent to the appellant. The appellant approach the CIC for seeking the information.

DECISION: Commission finds merit in the submission of the respondents. It is admitted that a report as mentioned by the appellant was submitted by the Commissioner of Income Tax to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, which along with the CCIT’s covering note, is held by the CBDT (under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act). The decision whether or not to disclose this report and the reasons thereof can be best taken by the CBDT and not the officers below, viz. C.I.T. and C.C.I.T. Pune, who submitted their report to the CBDT. In view of the above, it is held that the decision of the respondents not to disclose the

107

requested information valid under the provisions of the RTI Act. The appellant may, should be wish, approach the CBDT for the information, who will no-doubt process the case under the provisions of the RTI Act for a decision about disclosure or otherwise.

(21) Several queries of the appellant are in the nature of seeking explanations from the respondents about why they acted in a certain manner and not the other and why they never acted when according to the appellant they ought to have.

In the case Shri Gautam Mukherjee V/s DGCEI No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000077 dated 28-1-2010 the Commission held that even a brief look at the appellant’s RTI-application leaves one in no doubt that in a single application, not only he has included queries pertaining to different public authorities, his queries are also various. It is also found, that from his appeal petition, it is not possible to glean as to what precise objection he has to the replies with he has received from the respondents.

The provisions of Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, which authorizes him to ask either one or one set of query through a single petition. He may refer to CIC decision in Rajendra Singh Vs. CBI; Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2007/00967; Date of Decision: 19.06.2009, where it has been held that the RTI Act did not authorize a petitioner to ask multiple queries in a single petition. He may also refer to CIC Full Bench decision in Ketan Kantilal Modi Vs. Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC); Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01280; Date of Decision: 22.09.2009, in which it was held that it was a petitioner’s duty to file his request for information before the ‘concerned public authority’ and only if it is established that information-request has been filed before the ‘concerned public authority’ that the provision of Section 6(3) came into operation and not otherwise. Appellant had enclosed with his RTI-application a number of proformae, in which he had called upon various public authorities to tabulate the information required by him and to provide it to him. CPIO quite understandably declined to do so as under the provisions of the RTI Act, information could be supplied only if the request met the definition of information under Section 2(f) and not otherwise.

DECISION:

Public authorities were not obliged to create information to generate data for a petitioner’s convenience. This has been endorsed in several decisions of the Commission (Kamal C. Tiwari Vs. Ministry of Defence; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00360; Date of Decision: 23.11.2006 and Subhash Chandra Vs. Income Tax Department; Appeal Nos.CIC/AT/A/2007/00190 & F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00291; Date of Decision: 8.6.2007).

“In spite of the above infirmities in the RTI-application of the appellant, I was still inclined to go through each one of his request in order to establish how much information could be given to him corresponding to each of his queries. Despite my repeated urging, appellant was unwilling to make a proper response during hearing. His long-winded and rambling rejoinders do not lead to any tangible conclusion about

108

what information could really be identified for disclosure to him. I notice that a significant amount of information has been disclosed to the appellant by various CPIOs already.

In view of the above, I am not in a position to allow this appeal, which is closed.”

(22) The CPIO should be responsible to furnish information only that is available in his office. In the case of Shri Jai Kishan Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, (F. No. 216/IC/(A)/2006-F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00608 dated 31.08.2006) the appellant sought information relating to payment of allowance to several officers for ten years, i.e. 1995 to 2005. The CPIO provided the information to the appellant but could not provide the information which was not available with his office. The appellant filed his first appeal with the appellate authority of the RBI who observed that the appellant desires to have the information for the entire period of 10 years, i.e. even while they were working outside the Mumbai Regional Office, it needs to be collected and given to him, to the extent available in the records of the Bank without waiting for the response of CPIO the appellant filed second appeal before the Commission in which he has prayed for Penal Action against the CPIO of RBI.

DECISION:

Transparency in functioning of public authorities is expected to be ensured through the exercise of right to know, so that a citizen can scrutinize the fairness the objectivity of every public action. This objective cannot be achieved unless the information that is created and generated by the public bodies is disclosed in the form in which it exists with them. Therefore, an information is to be provided in the form in which it is sought, u/s 7(9) of the Act. And, if it does not exist in the form in which it is asked for and provided to the applicant, there is no way that proper scrutiny of public action could be made to determine any deviations from the established or accepted polices. The CPIO should be responsible to furnish information that are available in his office. The public authorities should follow the principle of maximum disclosure to allow to scrutiny of public action in the form in which it is available with them.

(23) The information contained in the file which is unconnected with the applicant can be withheld from disclosure by applying the severability clause under Section 10(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. In the case of Shri R.B. Sharma Vs. DGCEI, New Delhi, (No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00949 dated 09.10.2007)the appellant sought all document including file noting pertaining to sanction of reward to the applicant. The CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act, contending that the disclosure would expose the source of information and also endanger the life and physical safety of the officers who handled and processed the matter. The appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO. DECISION:

The appellant may be allowed inspection of the relevant file by the respondent with

109

the proviso that the respondents shall be free to apply the severability clause under Section (10) (1) of the RTI Act withhold form disclosure that part of the information in the file which is unconnected with the appellant.

(24) Reasons for rejection of requests for information must be clearly provided (Section 8(1) of the RTI Act)

In the case of Dhananjay Tripathi vs. Banaras Hindu University (Decision No. CIC/ OK / A/ 00163, dated 7.7.2006), the applicant had applied for information relating to the treatment and subsequent death of a student in the University hospital due to alleged negligence of the doctors attending him.

The appellant was, however, denied the information by the PIO of the University saying that the information sought could not be provided under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. No further reasons as to how the information sought could not be provided under the RTI Act was given.

DECISION:

The Commission held that quoting the provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act to deny the information without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply not acceptable, and clearly amount to malafide denial of legitimate information. The public authority must provide reasons for rejecting the particular application. The Commission further held that not providing the reasons of how the application for information was rejected according to a particular provision of the Act would attract penalties under Section 20(1) of the Act.

(25) No Imagined Exemptions other than grounds available in Section 8 of RTI Act.

Mangla Ram Jat vs. PIO, Banaras Hindu University, Decision No. CIC / OK / A 2008 / 00860 / SG / 0809, dated 31.12.2008. In this case Commission explained its role, ambit and scope of exemptions and the context of Right to Information. The Commission is conscious of the fact that it has been established under the Act and being an adjudicating body under the Act, it cannot take upon itself the role of the legislature and import new exemptions hitherto not provided. The Commission cannot of its own impose exemptions and substitute their own views for those of Parliament. The Act leaves no such liberty with the adjudicating authorities to read law beyond what it is stated explicitly. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the Act and tinkering with it in the name of larger public interest is beyond the scope of the adjudicating authorities. Creating new exemptions by the adjudicating authorities will go against the spirit of the Act. Under this Act, providing information is the rule and denial an exception. Any attempt to constrict or deny information to the Sovereign Citizen of India without the explicit sanction of the law will be going against rule of law.

110

DECISION:

Right to Information as part of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression is well established in our constitutional jurisprudence. Any restriction on the Fundamental Rights of the Citizens in a democratic polity is always looked upon with suspicion and is invariably preceded by a great deal of thought and reasoning. Even the Parliament, while constricting any fundamental rights of the citizens, is very wary. Therefore, the Commission is of the view that the Commission, an adjudicating body which is a creation of the Act, has no authority to import new exemptions and in the process curtail the Fundamental Right of Information of citizens. (26) It would be in inappropriate and even injurious, to on-going investigations if informers are allowed to intrude into the investigative progress under RTI Act.

In the case of Sh. S.K. Agarwalla Vs. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (F. No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01455 dated 25.04.2008), appellant (informer) asked for information relating to the progress of the case under investigations which was denied by the CPIO and the FAA. The appellant filed appeal before Information Commission against the decision of CPIO and FAA.

DECISION:

CIC felt that although speedy investigations in matters of revenue-evasion is salutary goal, it would be inappropriate and even injurious, to on-going investigations if informers are allowed to intrude into the investigative progress all in the name of enforcing a Right to Information. Intrusive supervision of investigation work of public authorities especially by interested parties has the effect of impeding that process, in the sense it exposes the officers to external pressures and constricts the freedom with which such investigations are to be conducted. Commission also felt that there is no reason why officers of public authorities should space their investigations to benefit informants. Intrusive interference in investigation work is not conductive to such investigations and, in that sense, impedes it.

(27) Copy of SP, CBI's report (Sections 8(1)(g), 8(1)(j), 8(1)(h) and 10 (1) of the RTI Act)

In the case of D.P. Maheshwari vs. CBI (Appeal No. CIC / WB / A /2008 /0269 and 270, dated 25.8.2009), the appellant sought the copy of the SP, CBI's report. In response to the application, SP, CBI responded that SP's report is an confidential document and hence exempted under 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The first appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground that the matter is pending trial and supply of SP's report at this stage would impede the prosecution of offenders. First appellate authority also mentioned that the document is confidential held under fiduciary relationship and its contents shall not be accessed by any one not authorized to access them. CBI also took the plea that the SP's report being sought is connected to the high profile scam in the State of Bihar amounting to Rs.200 crores. Disclosing the enquiry

111

report itself will expose the pros and cons of the case and will give undue advantage to those who intend to exploit. Moreover the appellant is not an accused in the case. Disclosure of the information sought will accordingly be not in the public interest. The appellant however mentioned that the investigation report has discussed his role in the scam and he was exonerated of the charges thereafter. He requires to know about his exoneration in the enquiry report so as to obviate further harassment and enquiry in the matter. CBI argued that the investigation report have details of personal information of many persons and its disclosure would amount to invasion of privacy and thus qualify for exemption under Section 8(1)(j).

DECISION:

The plea of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied as the appellant is asking for information about his own case. Even if the report contains personal information about others, the principle of severability under Section10 (1) can be applied. The Commission agreed that disclosure of complete report may impede the process of investigation and amount to invasion of privacy of the persons mentioned in the report. As such Section 8(1)(g) is applicable. However, since the appellant is not the accused the information regarding him cannot be held to be such as to impede the process of investigation or prosecution. Accordingly part of information exonerating the appellate may be provided as per Sub Section 1 of Section 10 of the RTI Act.

Right to Information Case Law Digest

Right to Information CellYashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration, Pune

February 2010

IMPORTANT DECISIONS

OF

Various High Courts on Right to Information Act

Capacity Building forAccess to Information

A Gol-UNDP Ini t iat ive

Right to Information Case Law Digest

Right to Information CellYashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration, Pune

February 2010

IMPORTANT DECISIONS

OF

Various High Courts on Right to Information Act

Capacity Building forAccess to Information

A Gol-UNDP Ini t iat ive

PREFACE

YASHADA, Pune in partnership with Center for Good Governance (CGG) have been

designated as the 'National Implementing Agency' (NIA) under the Department of Personnel and

Training (DoPT), Government of India and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

supported 'Capacity Building for Access to Information (CBAI) Project. This Project intends to

cover capacity building activities for implementing Right to Information Act, 2005.

Under this project YASHADA was assigned responsibility of training and capacity building

of resource persons (who in turn would conduct training programmes at State and District levels for

Public Information Officers, Appellate Authorities and other Government officials, NGOs, CSOs,

media persons etc.)

Right to Information Act, though is a revolutionary piece of legislation, it is a very small Act

and still there is panic among the implementers on account of confusion in interpreting various

provisions and the legal words used by the Legislature. As new practical regime as contemplated in

the Right to Information Act has been operationalized and a new information disclosure

jurisprudence is being evolved. There happens to be some confusion at times of taking decisions

and resolving conflicting claims.

The crucial issues are now coming on the public agenda and thus this Act is leading way to

Good Governance. There have been series of high court decisions on number of issues like public

authority, third party, appeal procedures, fiduciary interest, public interest, substantially financed,

controlled, imposition of penalty on PIO, disclosure, secrecy, privacy, etc.

In view of need for strengthening the Training and Capacity Building Resources, the CBAI

Project- NIA Team felt it necessary to compile a summary of various high court decisions, in the

form of a Digest of RTI Case Laws as an additional resource. The decisions and rulings given by

High Courts and Supreme Court play a vital role because various legislative terms, concepts and

intricacies are interpreted by these courts. This helps in bringing uniform clarity at all levels.

We have carried out a desk research, downloaded high court judgments from official

websites of various high courts and attempted to bring out a gist of the judgments. As there have

been number of landmark judgments, these are grouped together High Court wise and concept wise

for proper understanding. CBAI Project- NIA Team, believes that this will be very useful, valuable

and reliable resource for all the readers in general and trainers, Public Information Officers,

Appellate Authorities and Public Authorities in particular for interpreting various provisions of the

Right to Information Act .

As a summary or the gist we have compiled, is a brief narration of the case. However, it is

advised that for making crucial decisions, readers must refer to original judgments from its source.

We have taken every care and caution to make it accurate, however, there is a possibility that

some error might have left or crept. We would welcome suggestions from the readers for further

enrichment of this Digest.

V. RamaniDirector General

While all efforts have been made to make this RTI Case Law Digest as accurate and elaborate as

possible, the information given in this Digest is merely for reference and guideline and not binding

in any way. This Digest is intended to provide guidance to the trainers in particular and readers in

general. Users may refer full decisions for quoting references.

PREFACE

YASHADA, Pune in partnership with Center for Good Governance (CGG) have been

designated as the 'National Implementing Agency' (NIA) under the Department of Personnel and

Training (DoPT), Government of India and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

supported 'Capacity Building for Access to Information (CBAI) Project. This Project intends to

cover capacity building activities for implementing Right to Information Act, 2005.

Under this project YASHADA was assigned responsibility of training and capacity building

of resource persons (who in turn would conduct training programmes at State and District levels for

Public Information Officers, Appellate Authorities and other Government officials, NGOs, CSOs,

media persons etc.)

Right to Information Act, though is a revolutionary piece of legislation, it is a very small Act

and still there is panic among the implementers on account of confusion in interpreting various

provisions and the legal words used by the Legislature. As new practical regime as contemplated in

the Right to Information Act has been operationalized and a new information disclosure

jurisprudence is being evolved. There happens to be some confusion at times of taking decisions

and resolving conflicting claims.

The crucial issues are now coming on the public agenda and thus this Act is leading way to

Good Governance. There have been series of high court decisions on number of issues like public

authority, third party, appeal procedures, fiduciary interest, public interest, substantially financed,

controlled, imposition of penalty on PIO, disclosure, secrecy, privacy, etc.

In view of need for strengthening the Training and Capacity Building Resources, the CBAI

Project- NIA Team felt it necessary to compile a summary of various high court decisions, in the

form of a Digest of RTI Case Laws as an additional resource. The decisions and rulings given by

High Courts and Supreme Court play a vital role because various legislative terms, concepts and

intricacies are interpreted by these courts. This helps in bringing uniform clarity at all levels.

We have carried out a desk research, downloaded high court judgments from official

websites of various high courts and attempted to bring out a gist of the judgments. As there have

been number of landmark judgments, these are grouped together High Court wise and concept wise

for proper understanding. CBAI Project- NIA Team, believes that this will be very useful, valuable

and reliable resource for all the readers in general and trainers, Public Information Officers,

Appellate Authorities and Public Authorities in particular for interpreting various provisions of the

Right to Information Act .

As a summary or the gist we have compiled, is a brief narration of the case. However, it is

advised that for making crucial decisions, readers must refer to original judgments from its source.

We have taken every care and caution to make it accurate, however, there is a possibility that

some error might have left or crept. We would welcome suggestions from the readers for further

enrichment of this Digest.

V. RamaniDirector General

While all efforts have been made to make this RTI Case Law Digest as accurate and elaborate as

possible, the information given in this Digest is merely for reference and guideline and not binding

in any way. This Digest is intended to provide guidance to the trainers in particular and readers in

general. Users may refer full decisions for quoting references.

Sr. No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

RTI Act Concept

Section 2(h)- Public Authority

Information held or under the control of Publ ic Authority

Opportunity & hearing to PIO - necessary before imposing Penalty

Natural Justice

Unavailability of Records

Penalty

Investigation Information u/s 8(1)(h)

Natural JusticeRTI Act under section 20(1) does not envisage a post decisional show-cause-notice.

Case law

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiWP (C) No. 288/2009, Dated : 12-01-2010, Secretary General, Supreme Court Of India, Appellant Vs. Subhashchandra Agarwal, Respondent CORAM : Hon’ble The Chief Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiWrit Petition (Civil) No. 7265/ 2007, 25-09-2009, Poorna Prajna Public School Vs. Central Information Commission & Others

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiW.P. No. 7121 of 2007, Dated : 16-04- 2009, Madhu Jain, Petitioner Vs. Central Information Commissioner and another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. S.Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi W.P. No. 6094 of 2007, Dated : 08-04- 2009, J.P. Morgan India Pvt. Ltd., Petitioner Vs. Central Information commission and others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat.

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiW.P.(c) 6637/2007, Dated : 30-01-2009, Mrs. Sadhana, Petitioner Vs. Central Information and ors Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. S.Ravindra Bhat.

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiW.P.(C) 3845/2007, Dated: 28-04-2009, Mujibur rehman, Petitioner Vs Central Information Commission, Respondent, CORAM: Hon’ble J. S.Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiWP(C) No. 3114/2007, Dated :03-12-2007, Bhagat Singh, Petitioner Vs Chief Information Commissioner And Ors, Respondents CORAM : Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiW.P.(C) No. 5204/2008 , Decided on 02-07-2009 Dr. (Mrs) Sarla Rajput, Petitioner Vs.Central Information Commissioner & Ors Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Sanjeev Khanna

Contents

Page No.

1

3

5

6

6

7

8

10

Acknowledgement

This RTI Case Law Digest has been compiled and prepared by the National Implementing

Agency (NIA) team on the 'Capacity Building for Access to Information Project' (CBAI) at

Yashawantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration (YASHADA), Pune. The

team comprised:

·Mr. V. Ramani, Director General,

·Ms. Nidhi Pande, Dy. Director General ATI, Yashada, Pune

·Mr. Pralhad Kachare, Additional Director, RTI Cell, Yashada, Pune

·Mr. Navin Yadav, Senior Training Co-ordinator, RTI Cell, Yashada, Pune

·Mr. Vivek Jadhavar, Project Officer, RTI Cell, Yashada, Pune

·Mr. P. M Dhakephalkar, Retd. District Judge, Pune, contributed significantly in

preparation and revision of this Handbook.

The 'NIA – YASHADA Team' also acknowledges the valuable inputs from Mr. Ajay Sawhney,

IAS, Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), Government of India

(GoI) & Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Dy. Secretary Training, DoPT. The NIA-YASHADA team

also acknowledges resource support from CGG Hyderabad.

Yashada, Pune.

Sr. No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

RTI Act Concept

Section 2(h)- Public Authority

Information held or under the control of Publ ic Authority

Opportunity & hearing to PIO - necessary before imposing Penalty

Natural Justice

Unavailability of Records

Penalty

Investigation Information u/s 8(1)(h)

Natural JusticeRTI Act under section 20(1) does not envisage a post decisional show-cause-notice.

Case law

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiWP (C) No. 288/2009, Dated : 12-01-2010, Secretary General, Supreme Court Of India, Appellant Vs. Subhashchandra Agarwal, Respondent CORAM : Hon’ble The Chief Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiWrit Petition (Civil) No. 7265/ 2007, 25-09-2009, Poorna Prajna Public School Vs. Central Information Commission & Others

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiW.P. No. 7121 of 2007, Dated : 16-04- 2009, Madhu Jain, Petitioner Vs. Central Information Commissioner and another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. S.Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi W.P. No. 6094 of 2007, Dated : 08-04- 2009, J.P. Morgan India Pvt. Ltd., Petitioner Vs. Central Information commission and others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat.

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiW.P.(c) 6637/2007, Dated : 30-01-2009, Mrs. Sadhana, Petitioner Vs. Central Information and ors Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. S.Ravindra Bhat.

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiW.P.(C) 3845/2007, Dated: 28-04-2009, Mujibur rehman, Petitioner Vs Central Information Commission, Respondent, CORAM: Hon’ble J. S.Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiWP(C) No. 3114/2007, Dated :03-12-2007, Bhagat Singh, Petitioner Vs Chief Information Commissioner And Ors, Respondents CORAM : Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiW.P.(C) No. 5204/2008 , Decided on 02-07-2009 Dr. (Mrs) Sarla Rajput, Petitioner Vs.Central Information Commissioner & Ors Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Sanjeev Khanna

Contents

Page No.

1

3

5

6

6

7

8

10

Acknowledgement

This RTI Case Law Digest has been compiled and prepared by the National Implementing

Agency (NIA) team on the 'Capacity Building for Access to Information Project' (CBAI) at

Yashawantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration (YASHADA), Pune. The

team comprised:

·Mr. V. Ramani, Director General,

·Ms. Nidhi Pande, Dy. Director General ATI, Yashada, Pune

·Mr. Pralhad Kachare, Additional Director, RTI Cell, Yashada, Pune

·Mr. Navin Yadav, Senior Training Co-ordinator, RTI Cell, Yashada, Pune

·Mr. Vivek Jadhavar, Project Officer, RTI Cell, Yashada, Pune

·Mr. P. M Dhakephalkar, Retd. District Judge, Pune, contributed significantly in

preparation and revision of this Handbook.

The 'NIA – YASHADA Team' also acknowledges the valuable inputs from Mr. Ajay Sawhney,

IAS, Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), Government of India

(GoI) & Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Dy. Secretary Training, DoPT. The NIA-YASHADA team

also acknowledges resource support from CGG Hyderabad.

Yashada, Pune.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Delay in providing information

Appropriate Public Authority

Penalty

Penalty

Delay in Information because of Voluminous Records

ACRs of Public Servant are not private in character

File Notings and Correspondence can be disclosed

India. Petitioner. Vs. Central Information Commission and another. Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhC.W.P. No. 6558 / 2007, Dated : 28-03- 2008, Rajan Sachdev, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab and another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon. J. M. M. Kumar, Mrs. Sabina.

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at ChandigarhC.W.P. No. 19682 of 2006, Dated : 22-01-2008, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commission and others, Respondents CORAM : JJ –M. M. Kumar, T. P. S. Mann.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhW.P. No. 1785 of 2008, Dated : 28-07- 2009, S.S. Johal, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab and others, Respondents. CORAM : JJ- Jasbir Singh.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhC.W..P. No. 3494 of 2007, Dated : 11-02-2008, Rajbala, PetitionerVs. State of Haryana, and others Respondents. CORAM : JJ- M. M. Kumar, T. P. S. Mann.

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at ChandigarhNo. C.W.P. No. 10027 of 2008, Dated : 8-4-2008, Umesh Kumar Sharda and another, Petitioner Vs. The Punjab Information and others, Respondents. CORAM : JJ- M. M. Kumar & Mrs. Sabina.

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at ChandigarhCWP No. 8396 /2008, Dated : 19-05-2008, State of Punjab and others, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab and another, Respondents CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. J. N.M. Kumar, Hon’ble Mrs. J. Sabina

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at ChandigarhW.P. (C) No. 7289/2009, Dated : 14-07-2009, State of Punjab, Petitioner Vs State Information Officer and Others, Respondents CORAM : Hon’ble J. Jasbir Singh (Oral)

17

18

18

19

19

20

21

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Privacy u/s 8(1)(j)

Inspection of record with counsel or authorized representative.

No obligation to provide record which is not in existence

Quasi judicial tribunals such as the CIC while exercising their powers are c ircumscr ibed by the express provisions of the Act

Awarding Compensation for loss or agony to citizen.

Section 8(1)(d) – UPSC to declare cut off marks

A quasi-judicial body, like CIC cannot just close a case without a reasoned order.

Order denying imposing penalty cannot be upheld

Evaluated Answer Sheets

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiW.P.(C) No. 803/2009, Decided on 01-07-2009Vijay Prakash, Petitioner Vs. UNI and others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi WP(C) No. 8228 of 2007, Decided on 16-11-2007, Suresh Chand Gupta Through Ms Suman Chauhan, Advocate.. Petitioner. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police & Ors Respondent CORAM : Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi LPA No. 14/2008, Decided on 11-01-2009, Manohar Singh, Petitioner Vs N.T.P.C. and another, Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble C J Mukumdakam Sharma, Ms. Aruna Sharma

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi WP(C) No. 8708 of 2008, Decided on 27-04-2009, LIC of India, Petitioner Vs. CIC & Ors, Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiWP(C) No. 6661 of 2008, Decided on 16-04-2009, Union of India, Petitioner. Vs. Central Information Commission and others, Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court OF Delhi at New DelhiLPA No. 313 of 2007 and CM Appl. No. 6468/2007, Decided on 03-09-2008 Union Public Service Commission— Appellant Vs. Shiv Shambhu and others— Respondents.CORAM : Hon’ble C.J. Dr. S. Murlidhar

High Court OF Delhi, New DelhiW.P.(C) No. 7474/2007, Decided on 10-10-2007 - Jai Kant Gupta - Petitioner- Vs. The Central Information Commissioner and others - Respondents. CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. J. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi, at New-DelhiW.P.(C)No.3845/2007 - Decided on 28-04-2009 - Mujibur Rehman - Petitioner. Vs. Central Information Commission - Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. J. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New-DelhiW.P.(C) No. 8529/2009 - Decided on 30-04-2009- the Institute of Chartered Accountants of .

11

11

12

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


Appropriate Public Authority

Penalty

Penalty

Delay in Information because of Voluminous Records

ACRs of Public Servant are not private in character

File Notings and Correspondence can be disclosed

India. Petitioner. Vs. Central Information Commission and another. Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhC.W.P. No. 6558 / 2007, Dated : 28-03- 2008, Rajan Sachdev, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab and another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon. J. M. M. Kumar, Mrs. Sabina.

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at ChandigarhC.W.P. No. 19682 of 2006, Dated : 22-01-2008, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commission and others, Respondents CORAM : JJ –M. M. Kumar, T. P. S. Mann.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhW.P. No. 1785 of 2008, Dated : 28-07- 2009, S.S. Johal, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab and others, Respondents. CORAM : JJ- Jasbir Singh.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhC.W..P. No. 3494 of 2007, Dated : 11-02-2008, Rajbala, PetitionerVs. State of Haryana, and others Respondents. CORAM : JJ- M. M. Kumar, T. P. S. Mann.

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at ChandigarhNo. C.W.P. No. 10027 of 2008, Dated : 8-4-2008, Umesh Kumar Sharda and another, Petitioner Vs. The Punjab Information and others, Respondents. CORAM : JJ- M. M. Kumar & Mrs. Sabina.

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at ChandigarhCWP No. 8396 /2008, Dated : 19-05-2008, State of Punjab and others, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab and another, Respondents CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. J. N.M. Kumar, Hon’ble Mrs. J. Sabina

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at ChandigarhW.P. (C) No. 7289/2009, Dated : 14-07-2009, State of Punjab, Petitioner Vs State Information Officer and Others, Respondents CORAM : Hon’ble J. Jasbir Singh (Oral)

17

18

18

19

19

20

21

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Privacy u/s 8(1)(j)

Inspection of record with counsel or authorized representative.

No obligation to provide record which is not in existence

Quasi judicial tribunals such as the CIC while exercising their powers are c ircumscr ibed by the express provisions of the Act

Awarding Compensation for loss or agony to citizen.

Section 8(1)(d) – UPSC to declare cut off marks

A quasi-judicial body, like CIC cannot just close a case without a reasoned order.

Order denying imposing penalty cannot be upheld

Evaluated Answer Sheets

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiW.P.(C) No. 803/2009, Decided on 01-07-2009Vijay Prakash, Petitioner Vs. UNI and others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi WP(C) No. 8228 of 2007, Decided on 16-11-2007, Suresh Chand Gupta Through Ms Suman Chauhan, Advocate.. Petitioner. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police & Ors Respondent CORAM : Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi LPA No. 14/2008, Decided on 11-01-2009, Manohar Singh, Petitioner Vs N.T.P.C. and another, Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble C J Mukumdakam Sharma, Ms. Aruna Sharma

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi WP(C) No. 8708 of 2008, Decided on 27-04-2009, LIC of India, Petitioner Vs. CIC & Ors, Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New DelhiWP(C) No. 6661 of 2008, Decided on 16-04-2009, Union of India, Petitioner. Vs. Central Information Commission and others, Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

High Court OF Delhi at New DelhiLPA No. 313 of 2007 and CM Appl. No. 6468/2007, Decided on 03-09-2008 Union Public Service Commission— Appellant Vs. Shiv Shambhu and others— Respondents.CORAM : Hon’ble C.J. Dr. S. Murlidhar

High Court OF Delhi, New DelhiW.P.(C) No. 7474/2007, Decided on 10-10-2007 - Jai Kant Gupta - Petitioner- Vs. The Central Information Commissioner and others - Respondents. CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. J. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi, at New-DelhiW.P.(C)No.3845/2007 - Decided on 28-04-2009 - Mujibur Rehman - Petitioner. Vs. Central Information Commission - Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. J. Ravindra Bhat

High Court of Delhi at New-DelhiW.P.(C) No. 8529/2009 - Decided on 30-04-2009- the Institute of Chartered Accountants of .

11

11

12

12

13

14

15

16

17

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Complaint against State Information Commission

Public Authority u/s 2 (h)

Time Limit

Appropriate Government

Public Authority – liberal interpretation of term ‘instrumentalities of state’

Third Party Information & PIOs quasi-judicial role

Misuse of Powers Vested in CIC.

High Court OF Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhWrit Petition No. 6272 of 2009- Decided on 20-07-2009- H.C. Arora, Advocate- Petitioner. Vs.State of Punjab and others- Respondents CORAM : Hon’ble C.J. T. S. Thakur, J. Kanwaljitsingh Ahluwalia

High Court OF Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhW.P. No. 1105/2009, Decided on 25-02-2008- D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society and others—Petitioners Vs. Director of Public Instruction (Schools), UT Administration and others— Respondents. CORAM: Hon’ble J. M. M. Kumar, J. Jaswant Singh

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhC.W.P.No.No.10027/2008 - Decided on 08-04-2008- Umesh Kumar Sharda and another—Petitioners Vs. the Punjab Information Commissioner And others—Respondents, CORAM : Hon’ble J. M.M. Kumar, J. Sabina

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhW.P.No. 19682 of 2008, Decided on 22-01-2008- Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana – Petitioners Vs.State Information Commission Punjab, & others — Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. MM Kumar, J. TPS Mann

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at ChandigarhC.W.P. No. 453 of 2008, Decided on 14-01-2008, Principal, M.D. Sanatan Dharam Girls College, Ambala City And another, Petitioners Vs State Information Commissioner, Haryana and another, Respondents.

High Court Of GujaratSpecial Civil Application No. 16073 Of 2007 With Special Civil Application No. 17067 Of 2007.Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Gujrat SIC & 4 Respondents CORAM :Hon. D.N. Patel

High Court of GujaratSCA No. 16770/2007, Dated 31-08-2007, Gokalbhai Nanabhai Patel, Petitioner Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others, Respondents JJ : D. N. Patel.

27

27

28

28

29

30

33

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Penal Powers of Information Commission u/s 20

Penalty u/s 20

Information of third party & information u/s 8

Exemptions us 8 of RTI Act

The annual Confidential Reports of a public servant are not private in character.

Penalty u/s 20 of RTI Act

Obligation on Public Authority to make proactive disclosures.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

th Writ Petition No. 1924/2008, Decided on 08February 2008, Sri Ramesh Sharma and others, Petitioners Vs. State information Commission,Commission, Haryana and others, Respondents.CORAM : Hon’ble J. M. M. Kumar, J. T.P.S. Mann

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhWrit Petition No. 14161/2009, Decided on 10-09-2009, Shaheed Kanshi Ram Memorial College and another, Petitioners Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab and others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Jasbir Singh

High Court of Punjab – Haryana at ChandigarhW.P. No. Decided on 19-11-2007, Rajan Verma, Petitioner Vs. Union of India (UOI), Ministry Of Finance, Banking Divisions & Ors, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. K.C. Puri

High Court of Punjab – Haryana at ChandigarhW.P. No. 7289 of 2009 (O&M), Decided on 14–07-2009 State of Punjab, Petitioner Vs. State Information Officer & Ors, Respondents.

High Court of Punjab – Haryana at ChandigarhW.P. No. 8396 of 2008, Decided on 19-05-2008, State of Punjab and others, Petitioner, Vs. State Information Officer & another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. M.M. Kumar, J. Mrs Sabina

High Court of Punjab – Haryana at ChandigarhC.W.P. No. 14161 of 2009, Decided on 10-09- 2009, Shaheed Kanshi Ram Memorial College and another, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab & others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Jasbir Singh

High Court of Punjab & Haryana, at Chandigarh CWP No. 8209 of 2007, Decided on 10-08-2009, H.C. Arora .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. T.S. Thakur, J Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

22

23

23

24

25

26

26

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Complaint against State Information Commission

Public Authority u/s 2 (h)

Time Limit

Appropriate Government

Public Authority – liberal interpretation of term ‘instrumentalities of state’

Third Party Information & PIOs quasi-judicial role

Misuse of Powers Vested in CIC.

High Court OF Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhWrit Petition No. 6272 of 2009- Decided on 20-07-2009- H.C. Arora, Advocate- Petitioner. Vs.State of Punjab and others- Respondents CORAM : Hon’ble C.J. T. S. Thakur, J. Kanwaljitsingh Ahluwalia

High Court OF Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhW.P. No. 1105/2009, Decided on 25-02-2008- D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society and others—Petitioners Vs. Director of Public Instruction (Schools), UT Administration and others— Respondents. CORAM: Hon’ble J. M. M. Kumar, J. Jaswant Singh

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhC.W.P.No.No.10027/2008 - Decided on 08-04-2008- Umesh Kumar Sharda and another—Petitioners Vs. the Punjab Information Commissioner And others—Respondents, CORAM : Hon’ble J. M.M. Kumar, J. Sabina

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhW.P.No. 19682 of 2008, Decided on 22-01-2008- Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana – Petitioners Vs.State Information Commission Punjab, & others — Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. MM Kumar, J. TPS Mann

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at ChandigarhC.W.P. No. 453 of 2008, Decided on 14-01-2008, Principal, M.D. Sanatan Dharam Girls College, Ambala City And another, Petitioners Vs State Information Commissioner, Haryana and another, Respondents.

High Court Of GujaratSpecial Civil Application No. 16073 Of 2007 With Special Civil Application No. 17067 Of 2007.Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Gujrat SIC & 4 Respondents CORAM :Hon. D.N. Patel

High Court of GujaratSCA No. 16770/2007, Dated 31-08-2007, Gokalbhai Nanabhai Patel, Petitioner Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others, Respondents JJ : D. N. Patel.

27

27

28

28

29

30

33

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Penal Powers of Information Commission u/s 20

Penalty u/s 20

Information of third party & information u/s 8

Exemptions us 8 of RTI Act

The annual Confidential Reports of a public servant are not private in character.


Obligation on Public Authority to make proactive disclosures.


th Writ Petition No. 1924/2008, Decided on 08February 2008, Sri Ramesh Sharma and others, Petitioners Vs. State information Commission,Commission, Haryana and others, Respondents.CORAM : Hon’ble J. M. M. Kumar, J. T.P.S. Mann

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhWrit Petition No. 14161/2009, Decided on 10-09-2009, Shaheed Kanshi Ram Memorial College and another, Petitioners Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab and others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Jasbir Singh

High Court of Punjab – Haryana at ChandigarhW.P. No. Decided on 19-11-2007, Rajan Verma, Petitioner Vs. Union of India (UOI), Ministry Of Finance, Banking Divisions & Ors, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. K.C. Puri

High Court of Punjab – Haryana at ChandigarhW.P. No. 7289 of 2009 (O&M), Decided on 14–07-2009 State of Punjab, Petitioner Vs. State Information Officer & Ors, Respondents.

High Court of Punjab – Haryana at ChandigarhW.P. No. 8396 of 2008, Decided on 19-05-2008, State of Punjab and others, Petitioner, Vs. State Information Officer & another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. M.M. Kumar, J. Mrs Sabina

High Court of Punjab – Haryana at ChandigarhC.W.P. No. 14161 of 2009, Decided on 10-09- 2009, Shaheed Kanshi Ram Memorial College and another, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab & others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Jasbir Singh

High Court of Punjab & Haryana, at Chandigarh CWP No. 8209 of 2007, Decided on 10-08-2009, H.C. Arora .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. T.S. Thakur, J Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

22

23

23

24

25

26

26

Petitioner Vs. The Goa State Information Through the State Chief Information Commission and Another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. S. A. Bobde

High Court of Mumbai at GoaWrit Petition No. 205 of 2007, Decided on 17-09-2009 - A.A. Parulekar, Superintending Engineer II,Public Works Department, Altinho, Panaji, Goa.- Petitioner Vs 1. Goa State Information Commission Through Shri A. Venkataratnam, State Chief Information Commissioner, Ground Floor, Shram Shakti Bhavan, Patto, Panji, Goa- 2. Shri Sushant S. Naik, H. No.103, Costi, Kalay, Sanguem ,Goa-Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. A.H. Joshi

High Court of Mumbai at GoaWrit Petition No. 435 of 2007, Decided on 12-03-2009, 1. Pushpalata Arlekar, Dy. Director of administration, PWD, Panaji-Goa 2. A.M. Wachasunder, Principal Chief Engineer, PWD, Altinho, Panji-Goa, Petitioners Vs. Goa State Information Commission, & others —Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. N. A. Britto

High Court of Mumbai at Goa.W.P.(C) No. 1/2009- Decided on 09-01-2009- Kashinath J. Shetye—Petitioner Vs. Public Information Officer and others—Respondents. CORAM: Hon’ble J. C.L. Pangarkar

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench W.P.No.5666 of 2007, Decided on 13-01-2009, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh, Urban Co-oprative Bank Ltd. Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Irwin Chowk, Amaravati, managing Director, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commissioner, Nagpur, Respondent

High Court at CalcuttaW.P. No. 121 of 2009, Dated: 30-07-2009, Basudeb Batabyal, Petitioner Vs. Central Information Commission and ors, Respondents; W.P. No. 310 of 2009, The commissioner of customs (Port), Petitioner Vs. The Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission & Ors., Respondents CORAM : J. Sanjib Banerjee

Penalty order has to be justified.

Penalty should be for defaulting PIO

Personal records of public servant - Privacy

Urban Co-operativeCredit Bank - not a Public Authority

Revenue intelligence must make available the information relating to the quantum of reward

48

49

50

51

52

40

41

41

42

43

Third Party Rights

Information Commission has no authority to order refund of fees

About Public Authority

Public Authority u/s 2(h)

Managing Committee of Public Authority accountable

Appointment of State Information Commissioner u/s 15 (2)

Penalty for delay in providing information

Fiduciary Relationship

Definition of Information u/s 2 (f) cannot include answers to the question why ?

High Court of GujaratSCA No. 23103/2007, Dated 3-10-2007, B.J. Dhandha, Petitioner Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others, Respondents, CORAM : Hon’ble J. D.N. Patel

High Court of Gujarat SCA No. 23305/2007, Decided on 28-11-2007, Ahmedabad Education Society And another, Petitioner Vs. The Union of India (UOI) And 3 others, RespondentsCORAM : Hon’ble J. D.N. Patel

High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow BenchMISC. Bench No 8464/2007, Dated 01/01/2008, Braj Bhushan Dubey Vs. SIC, Lucknow & 3 Ors, CORAM : Hon. J. Udaikrishna Dhaon, J. Satyendra singh Chauhan.

High Court of Allahabad W.P.(C) No. 4747/2008, Decided on 24-01-2008 Dhara Singh Girls High School Petitioner Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary (Secondary Education) U.P. Government others, Respondents. CORAM: Hon’ble J. Rakesh Tiwari

High Court of AllahabadSpecial Appeal No.766 of 288, Surendra Singh, Petitioner Vs. State of U.P. and others, Respondents

High Court of Himachal Pradesh W.P.(C) No. 866/2006, Decided on 17-05-2007 Virender Kumar, Petitioner Vs. P.S. Rana And another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Deepak Gupta

High Court of MumbaiW.P. (C) No. 1869 of 2008, Dated : 24-03- 2008 - Mr. Amar Maruti Salunkhe, Petitioner & Others Vs. SIC, respondents. CORAM : Hon. J. N. Patel & S. S. Shinde

High Court of Mumbai W.P.(C) 1750/2007, Dated 23-03-2007, Mr. Surupsingh Hrya Naik, Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra, Respondents, through Additional Secretary, General Administration Department. CORAM: Hon’ble J. F. I. Rebello

High Court of Mumbai W.P.(C) No. 419/2007 , Decided on 03-04-2008 Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

33

34

35

35

36

37

38

38

40

Petitioner Vs. The Goa State Information Through the State Chief Information Commission and Another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. S. A. Bobde

High Court of Mumbai at GoaWrit Petition No. 205 of 2007, Decided on 17-09-2009 - A.A. Parulekar, Superintending Engineer II,Public Works Department, Altinho, Panaji, Goa.- Petitioner Vs 1. Goa State Information Commission Through Shri A. Venkataratnam, State Chief Information Commissioner, Ground Floor, Shram Shakti Bhavan, Patto, Panji, Goa- 2. Shri Sushant S. Naik, H. No.103, Costi, Kalay, Sanguem ,Goa-Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. A.H. Joshi

High Court of Mumbai at GoaWrit Petition No. 435 of 2007, Decided on 12-03-2009, 1. Pushpalata Arlekar, Dy. Director of administration, PWD, Panaji-Goa 2. A.M. Wachasunder, Principal Chief Engineer, PWD, Altinho, Panji-Goa, Petitioners Vs. Goa State Information Commission, & others —Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. N. A. Britto

High Court of Mumbai at Goa.W.P.(C) No. 1/2009- Decided on 09-01-2009- Kashinath J. Shetye—Petitioner Vs. Public Information Officer and others—Respondents. CORAM: Hon’ble J. C.L. Pangarkar

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench W.P.No.5666 of 2007, Decided on 13-01-2009, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh, Urban Co-oprative Bank Ltd. Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Irwin Chowk, Amaravati, managing Director, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commissioner, Nagpur, Respondent

High Court at CalcuttaW.P. No. 121 of 2009, Dated: 30-07-2009, Basudeb Batabyal, Petitioner Vs. Central Information Commission and ors, Respondents; W.P. No. 310 of 2009, The commissioner of customs (Port), Petitioner Vs. The Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission & Ors., Respondents CORAM : J. Sanjib Banerjee

Penalty order has to be justified.

Penalty should be for defaulting PIO

Personal records of public servant - Privacy

Urban Co-operativeCredit Bank - not a Public Authority

Revenue intelligence must make available the information relating to the quantum of reward

48

49

50

51

52

40

41

41

42

43

Third Party Rights

Information Commission has no authority to order refund of fees

About Public Authority


Managing Committee of Public Authority accountable

Appointment of State Information Commissioner u/s 15 (2)

Penalty for delay in providing information

Fiduciary Relationship

Definition of Information u/s 2 (f) cannot include answers to the question why ?

High Court of GujaratSCA No. 23103/2007, Dated 3-10-2007, B.J. Dhandha, Petitioner Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others, Respondents, CORAM : Hon’ble J. D.N. Patel

High Court of Gujarat SCA No. 23305/2007, Decided on 28-11-2007, Ahmedabad Education Society And another, Petitioner Vs. The Union of India (UOI) And 3 others, RespondentsCORAM : Hon’ble J. D.N. Patel

High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow BenchMISC. Bench No 8464/2007, Dated 01/01/2008, Braj Bhushan Dubey Vs. SIC, Lucknow & 3 Ors, CORAM : Hon. J. Udaikrishna Dhaon, J. Satyendra singh Chauhan.

High Court of Allahabad W.P.(C) No. 4747/2008, Decided on 24-01-2008 Dhara Singh Girls High School Petitioner Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary (Secondary Education) U.P. Government others, Respondents. CORAM: Hon’ble J. Rakesh Tiwari

High Court of AllahabadSpecial Appeal No.766 of 288, Surendra Singh, Petitioner Vs. State of U.P. and others, Respondents

High Court of Himachal Pradesh W.P.(C) No. 866/2006, Decided on 17-05-2007 Virender Kumar, Petitioner Vs. P.S. Rana And another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Deepak Gupta

High Court of MumbaiW.P. (C) No. 1869 of 2008, Dated : 24-03- 2008 - Mr. Amar Maruti Salunkhe, Petitioner & Others Vs. SIC, respondents. CORAM : Hon. J. N. Patel & S. S. Shinde

High Court of Mumbai W.P.(C) 1750/2007, Dated 23-03-2007, Mr. Surupsingh Hrya Naik, Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra, Respondents, through Additional Secretary, General Administration Department. CORAM: Hon’ble J. F. I. Rebello

High Court of Mumbai W.P.(C) No. 419/2007 , Decided on 03-04-2008 Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

33

34

35

35

36

37

38

38

40

Office, Respondent. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Anil Dave

High Court of Chennai W.P. No. 5427 of 2007, Dated : 25-06- 2007, Ms. V.V. Mineral, Petitioner Vs. The Director of Geology & MKining, Guindy, Chennai – 32 and 5 others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. K. Chandru

High Court of Chennai W.P. 35490/2007, Dated : 24-01-2008, A.C. Sekar, Petitioner, Vs. The Deputy Registrar ofCo-operative Societies and others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J : K. Chandru.

High Court Of ChennaiW.A. No. Of 2008, Dated : 05-08-2008, Tamilnadu Road Development Company Limited Vs Tamilnadu Information Commission CORAM : Hon’ble Chief J. F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, Hon’ble Mr. J. A.K. Ganguly.

High Court of Chennai W.A No. 811/2008 Decided on 05-08-2008 Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Ltd Rep. by its Director-in-Charge Sindur Panthion Plaza, II Floor, 346, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008, Petitioner Vs. Tamil Nadu Information Commission, rep. by its Registrar,

stKamdhenu Super Market 1 Floor, No. 273, New No. 378, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 18 And another. Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Ibrahim Kalifulla

High Court of Chennai W.P.No.No.47897/2006 - Decided on 17-04-2008- R. Anbazhagan - Petitioner. Vs. State Information Commission and others. — Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Prabha Sridevan,

High Court of ChennaiW.P.No.No.36901/2006, Decided on 16-03-2007- Diamond Jubilee Higher Secondary School, Petitioner. Vs. the Union of India and others. Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble J. K.Chandru

High Court of ChennaiW.P.No.18533 of 2007, Decided on 27-02-2008, J.M. Arumugham, Petitioner Vs. State represented byThe Deputy SuperintendentOf police & others, Respondents

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

Exempted Information Sec.8 & Third Party Information

Private Information

Public Authority


RTI Act mandates full disclosure of information

Diamond Jubilee Higher Secondary School is a Public Authority

Substantive reason need not be assigned for seeking certified copies

49

50

50

52

53

53

54

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at HyderabadW.P. No. 4109/2008, Dated : 29-02-2008- Md. Shafiquzzaman, IAS, S/o Late Md. Zafirulzaman, Petitioner Vs. A.P. Information Commission, Respondents. by its Chief Information Commissioner, HAACA Bhavan, Hyderabad and three others Respondents. CORAM : Hon. J. N. V. Ramana.

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at HyderabadW.P. No. 20182 of 2008, Dated : 27-01- 2009, Divakar S. Natarajan, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commissioner, A. P. State and others, Respondents Hon J. L. Narsimha Reddy.

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at HydarabadW.P.No. 16717/2008 , Decided on 04-12-2008 The Public Information Officer/ Joint Secretary to Chief Commissioner Of land, Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad and another, Petitioner Vs. A.P. Information Commissioner, (under Right to Information Act, 2005) Rep by its Chief Information Commission, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad and other Respondents, CORAM : Hon’ble J. V.V.S. Rao

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at HyderabadW.P.No. 4109 of 2008 - Decided on 11-03-2008- Md.Shafiquzzaman, S/o Md. Zafirulzaman—Petitioners Vs. A.P. Information Commission & othersn Respondents, CORAM : Hon’ble J. N.V.Ramana

High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore C.C.C. No. 525 /2008 (Civil), Dated : 27-01-2009, Shri G. Basavraju, Petitioner. Vs. Smt. Arundathi, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. S.R. Bannurmath, J. A.N. Venugopal Gowda

High Court of Karnataka at BangalorW.P. No. 7953 of 2007, Dated : 16-07-2008, Sri H. Ramakrishna Gowda, Petitioner Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. N. Kumar.

High Court of Karnataka Writ Petition No.28810 of 2008 , Decided on 24-04-2009, Khanapuram Gandaia-Petitioner.Vs. Administrative Officer, Ranga Reddy District Court Cum-Public Information


Disclose the purpose of Information

Overriding effect of section 22 of RTI Act

CIC empowered to enforce compliance of its orders.

Contempt of Court Order

Exempted Information Sec. 8

Reasoning need not be beyond written Judgment.

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

44

44

45

46

47

47

48

Office, Respondent. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Anil Dave

High Court of Chennai W.P. No. 5427 of 2007, Dated : 25-06- 2007, Ms. V.V. Mineral, Petitioner Vs. The Director of Geology & MKining, Guindy, Chennai – 32 and 5 others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. K. Chandru

High Court of Chennai W.P. 35490/2007, Dated : 24-01-2008, A.C. Sekar, Petitioner, Vs. The Deputy Registrar ofCo-operative Societies and others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J : K. Chandru.

High Court Of ChennaiW.A. No. Of 2008, Dated : 05-08-2008, Tamilnadu Road Development Company Limited Vs Tamilnadu Information Commission CORAM : Hon’ble Chief J. F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, Hon’ble Mr. J. A.K. Ganguly.

High Court of Chennai W.A No. 811/2008 Decided on 05-08-2008 Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Ltd Rep. by its Director-in-Charge Sindur Panthion Plaza, II Floor, 346, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008, Petitioner Vs. Tamil Nadu Information Commission, rep. by its Registrar,

stKamdhenu Super Market 1 Floor, No. 273, New No. 378, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 18 And another. Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Ibrahim Kalifulla

High Court of Chennai W.P.No.No.47897/2006 - Decided on 17-04-2008- R. Anbazhagan - Petitioner. Vs. State Information Commission and others. — Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Prabha Sridevan,

High Court of ChennaiW.P.No.No.36901/2006, Decided on 16-03-2007- Diamond Jubilee Higher Secondary School, Petitioner. Vs. the Union of India and others. Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble J. K.Chandru

High Court of ChennaiW.P.No.18533 of 2007, Decided on 27-02-2008, J.M. Arumugham, Petitioner Vs. State represented byThe Deputy SuperintendentOf police & others, Respondents

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

Exempted Information Sec.8 & Third Party Information

Private Information

Public Authority


RTI Act mandates full disclosure of information

Diamond Jubilee Higher Secondary School is a Public Authority

Substantive reason need not be assigned for seeking certified copies

49

50

50

52

53

53

54

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at HyderabadW.P. No. 4109/2008, Dated : 29-02-2008- Md. Shafiquzzaman, IAS, S/o Late Md. Zafirulzaman, Petitioner Vs. A.P. Information Commission, Respondents. by its Chief Information Commissioner, HAACA Bhavan, Hyderabad and three others Respondents. CORAM : Hon. J. N. V. Ramana.

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at HyderabadW.P. No. 20182 of 2008, Dated : 27-01- 2009, Divakar S. Natarajan, Petitioner Vs. State Information Commissioner, A. P. State and others, Respondents Hon J. L. Narsimha Reddy.

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at HydarabadW.P.No. 16717/2008 , Decided on 04-12-2008 The Public Information Officer/ Joint Secretary to Chief Commissioner Of land, Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad and another, Petitioner Vs. A.P. Information Commissioner, (under Right to Information Act, 2005) Rep by its Chief Information Commission, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad and other Respondents, CORAM : Hon’ble J. V.V.S. Rao

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at HyderabadW.P.No. 4109 of 2008 - Decided on 11-03-2008- Md.Shafiquzzaman, S/o Md. Zafirulzaman—Petitioners Vs. A.P. Information Commission & othersn Respondents, CORAM : Hon’ble J. N.V.Ramana

High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore C.C.C. No. 525 /2008 (Civil), Dated : 27-01-2009, Shri G. Basavraju, Petitioner. Vs. Smt. Arundathi, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. S.R. Bannurmath, J. A.N. Venugopal Gowda

High Court of Karnataka at BangalorW.P. No. 7953 of 2007, Dated : 16-07-2008, Sri H. Ramakrishna Gowda, Petitioner Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. N. Kumar.

High Court of Karnataka Writ Petition No.28810 of 2008 , Decided on 24-04-2009, Khanapuram Gandaia-Petitioner.Vs. Administrative Officer, Ranga Reddy District Court Cum-Public Information


Disclose the purpose of Information

Overriding effect of section 22 of RTI Act

CIC empowered to enforce compliance of its orders.

Contempt of Court Order

Exempted Information Sec. 8

Reasoning need not be beyond written Judgment.

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

44

44

45

46

47

47

48

1. Chief Justice of India is a Public Authority u/s 2(h)

Right To Information Cell, Yashada

Compilation of the judgments of the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.

1

1. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi - WP (C)

No. 288/2009, Dated: 12-01-2010, Secretary

General, Supreme Court of India, Appellant

Vs. Subhashchandra Agarwal, Respondent

CORAM:J: S. Ravindra Bhat

In this case the petitioner had challenged the

order of the Central Information Commission thdated 6 January 2009, upholding the request of

the respondent Subhash Chandra Agarwal who

had applied for disclosure of certain information

concerning declaration of personal assets, by the

Judges of the Supreme Court.

The following issues arose in the case :-

1. Whether the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a

public authority;

2. Whether the office of CPIO of the Supreme

Court of India, is different from the office of

the Chief Justice of India and if so, whether

the Act covers the office of the CJI :

3. Whether asset declarations by Supreme Court

judges, pursuant to the 1997 Resolution is

'information', under the Right to Information

Act, 2005;

4. If such asset declarations are 'information'

does the CJI hold them in a 'fiduciary'

capacity, and are they therefore, exempt from

disclosure under the Act;

5. Whether such information is exempt from

disclosure by reason of Section 8(1) (j) of the

Act;

6. Whether the lack of clarity about the details of

asset declaration and about their details, as

well as lack of security renders asset

dec lara t ions and the i r d isc losure ,

unworkable.

While deciding above issues the High Court held

that the CJI is a public authority under the Right to

Information Act and CJI holds the information

pertaining to asset declaration in his capacity as

Chief Justice; that office is a 'public authority'

under the Act and is covered by its provision. It

was further held that the second part of the

respondent's application, relating to declaration

of assets by the Supreme Court Judges, is

'information' within the meaning of the

expression, u/s 2(f) of the Act. The information

pertaining to declarations come to the CJI and the

contents of such declaration are 'information' and

subject to the provisions of the Right to

Information Act. It was also held that the

argument about the CJI holding asset declaration

in fiduciary capacity is insubstantial. The CJI

does not hold such declaration in a fiduciary

capacity or relationship. It was further held that

the contents of asset declaration are entitled to be

treated as personal information, and may be

accessed in accordance with the procedure

prescribed under section 8(1)(j); they are not

otherwise subject to disclosure. Lastly it was

observed that the CJI, if he deems it appropriate,

may in consultation with the Supreme Court

Judges, evolve uniform standards, devising the

nature of information, relevant formats, and if

required, the periodicity of the declaration to be

made.

Holding as above, the Delhi High Court directed

that the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, shall

release the information sought by the respondent

about the declaration of assets (not the contents of

the declarations, as that was not sought for) made

by Judges of the Supreme Court, within four

weeks.

High Court of Kerala rd

Writ Petition No. 18175/2006, Decided on 3 April, 2009 Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank, Petitioner Vs. Union of India, and 5 others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan

High Court of Kerala W.P.(C) No. 4668/2007 (E), Decided on 04-07-2007 M.P. Varghese etc. Petitioner Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University And others Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Siri Jagan

High Court of Kerala WP(C) No. 2770 of 2009, Decided on 22-01-2009, K. Vijayakumar, S/o Kumaran petitioner Vs State Information Commission, Kerala and others. Respondent. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Antony Dominic

High Court of KeralaW P(C) No.7302 of 2007(T), Decided on 03-04-2007, M.D. Thomas, S/o Late Mr. Devasia — Petitioner Vs.1. The Chief General Manager (Operations), 2. The Assistant General Manager— Respondents. CORAM: Hon’ble J. S. Siri Jagan

Highcourt of KeralaCanara Bank represented by Asst. Regional Manager, Petitioner Vs. Central Information Commission & Others, Respondents

Co-Operatives in Kerala are Public Authorty u/s 2(h)



Untraceable Record

Pay and allowances information to be disclosed

67

68

69

70

71

55

56

56

57

57

1. Chief Justice of India is a Public Authority u/s 2(h)



1

1. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi - WP (C)

No. 288/2009, Dated: 12-01-2010, Secretary

General, Supreme Court of India, Appellant

Vs. Subhashchandra Agarwal, Respondent

CORAM:J: S. Ravindra Bhat


order of the Central Information Commission thdated 6 January 2009, upholding the request of

the respondent Subhash Chandra Agarwal who

had applied for disclosure of certain information

concerning declaration of personal assets, by the

Judges of the Supreme Court.

The following issues arose in the case :-

1. Whether the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a

public authority;

2. Whether the office of CPIO of the Supreme

Court of India, is different from the office of

the Chief Justice of India and if so, whether

the Act covers the office of the CJI :

3. Whether asset declarations by Supreme Court

judges, pursuant to the 1997 Resolution is

'information', under the Right to Information

Act, 2005;

4. If such asset declarations are 'information'

does the CJI hold them in a 'fiduciary'

capacity, and are they therefore, exempt from

disclosure under the Act;

5. Whether such information is exempt from

disclosure by reason of Section 8(1) (j) of the

Act;

6. Whether the lack of clarity about the details of

asset declaration and about their details, as

well as lack of security renders asset

dec lara t ions and the i r d isc losure ,

unworkable.

While deciding above issues the High Court held

that the CJI is a public authority under the Right to

Information Act and CJI holds the information

pertaining to asset declaration in his capacity as

Chief Justice; that office is a 'public authority'

under the Act and is covered by its provision. It

was further held that the second part of the

respondent's application, relating to declaration

of assets by the Supreme Court Judges, is

'information' within the meaning of the

expression, u/s 2(f) of the Act. The information

pertaining to declarations come to the CJI and the

contents of such declaration are 'information' and

subject to the provisions of the Right to

Information Act. It was also held that the

argument about the CJI holding asset declaration

in fiduciary capacity is insubstantial. The CJI

does not hold such declaration in a fiduciary

capacity or relationship. It was further held that

the contents of asset declaration are entitled to be

treated as personal information, and may be

accessed in accordance with the procedure

prescribed under section 8(1)(j); they are not

otherwise subject to disclosure. Lastly it was

observed that the CJI, if he deems it appropriate,

may in consultation with the Supreme Court

Judges, evolve uniform standards, devising the

nature of information, relevant formats, and if

required, the periodicity of the declaration to be

made.

Holding as above, the Delhi High Court directed

that the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, shall

release the information sought by the respondent

about the declaration of assets (not the contents of

the declarations, as that was not sought for) made

by Judges of the Supreme Court, within four

weeks.

High Court of Kerala rd

Writ Petition No. 18175/2006, Decided on 3 April, 2009 Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank, Petitioner Vs. Union of India, and 5 others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan

High Court of Kerala W.P.(C) No. 4668/2007 (E), Decided on 04-07-2007 M.P. Varghese etc. Petitioner Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University And others Respondents. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Siri Jagan

High Court of Kerala WP(C) No. 2770 of 2009, Decided on 22-01-2009, K. Vijayakumar, S/o Kumaran petitioner Vs State Information Commission, Kerala and others. Respondent. CORAM : Hon’ble J. Antony Dominic

High Court of KeralaW P(C) No.7302 of 2007(T), Decided on 03-04-2007, M.D. Thomas, S/o Late Mr. Devasia — Petitioner Vs.1. The Chief General Manager (Operations), 2. The Assistant General Manager— Respondents. CORAM: Hon’ble J. S. Siri Jagan

Highcourt of KeralaCanara Bank represented by Asst. Regional Manager, Petitioner Vs. Central Information Commission & Others, Respondents

Co-Operatives in Kerala are Public Authorty u/s 2(h)



Untraceable Record

Pay and allowances information to be disclosed

67

68

69

70

71

55

56

56

57

57



3

2. Information held or under the control of Public Authority.

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi - Writ thPetition No. 7265/2009, Decided on 25

September, 2009 - Poorna Prajna Public

School, Petitioner Vs. Central Information

Commission and others, Respondents.

CORAM : Hon. : J -Sanjeev Khanna

In this case respondent No.4 had filed an

application under the RTI Act before Public

Information Officer appointed by the Department

of Education, Union Territory of Delhi. One of

the information was relating to the minutes of

Managing Committee of the petitioner Poorna

Prajna Public School, i.e. the petitioner. The said

information was not available with the

department of education and, therefore, the said

request was sent to the petitioner school. The

Petitioner school submitted that they were a

private unaided institution and not covered under

the RTI Act and respondent No. 4 had no locus

standi to ask for information. Accepting this

submission the Public Information Officer did

not furnish the information and, therefore,

respondent No. 4 filed first appeal and then

approached the Cen t ra l In fo rmat ion

Commission. Holding that petitioner school was

a public authority as defined in Sec. 2(h) of the

RTI Act, the Information Commissioner allowed

the appeal. Aggrieved by this decision the

petitioner school filed writ petition contending

inter alia that the provisions of the RTI Act do not

cover it. After hearing both sides and on perusal

of provisions under sections 2 and 22 of the RTI

Act and also the provisions under D.S.E. Rules,

the High Court held that the Officer of the

Directorate of Education is required to be

nominated as a member of the Managing

Committee of petitioner school. The Minutes of

the Managing Committee have to be circulated

and sent to the officer of the Directorate of

Education. Obviously the minutes once

circulated to the officer of the Directorate of

Education have to be regarded as information

accessible to the Directorate of Education. In

these circumstances it cannot be said that

information in the form of minutes of the meeting

of the Managing Committee are not covered

under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

Information as defined in Section 2(f) means

details or material available with the public

authority. The later portion of Section 2(f) (WPC

No.7265/2007 Page 5 ) expands the definition to

include details or material which can be accessed

under any other law from others. The two

definitions have to be read harmoniously. The

term ? held by or under the control of any public

authority in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be

read in a manner that it effectuates and is in

harmony with the definition of the term

information as defined in Section 2(f). The said

expression used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act

should not be read in a manner that it negates or

nullifies definition of the term ? information in

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is well settled that

an interpretation that renders another provision or

part thereof redundant or superfluous should be

avoided. Information as defined in Section 2(f) of

the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information

relating to any private body, which can be

accessed by public authority under any law for the

time being in force. Therefore, if a public

authority has a right and is entitled to access

information from a private body, under any other



2

Chief Justice of India is a Public

Authority u/s 2(h)

2. High Court of Delhi –(Division Bench th

Judgment) LPA No.501/2009, 12 January

2010 - Secretary General, Supreme Court of

India-Appellant Vs Subhash Chandra

Agarwal, Respondent, CORAM: J. Hon. Ajit

Shaha, Vikramajit Sen CORAM, S.

Muralidhar.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

2nd September, 2009 of the learned single Judge

(S. Ravindra Bhat, J) in the writ petition filed by

the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme

Court of India (hereinafter, “the CPIO”)

designated under the Right to Information Act,

2005 (hereinafter, “the Act”) questioning th

correctness and legality of the order dated 6

January, 2009 of the Central Information

Commission (hereinafter, “the CIC”) whereby

the request of the respondent No.1 (Subhash

Chandra Agarwal) for supply of information

concerning declaration of personal assets by the

Judges of the Supreme Court was upheld.

The subject matter at hand involves questions of

great importance concerning balance of rights of

individuals and equities against the backdrop of

paradigm changes brought about by the

legislature through the Act ushering in an era of

transparency, probity and accountability as also

the increasing expectation of the civil society that

the judicial organ, like all other public

institutions, will also offer itself for public

scrutiny. A citizen demanded information about

asset declarations by the Judges. In this context,

questions have been raised and need to be

answered as to whether a “right to information”

can be asserted and maintained within the

meaning of the expression defined in Section 2(j)

of the Act. Equally important are the questions

requiring interpretation of the expressions

“fiduciary”, as in Section 8(1)(e) and “privacy” as

in Section 8(1)(j), both used but not defined

specifically by the statute.

Upon consideration of the submissions made

before him, the learned single Judge concluded

that the Chief Justice of India is a public authority

under the Right to Information Act and holds the

information pertaining to asset declarations in

his capacity as the Chief Justice. It was also

held that the office of the Chief Justice of India is

“public authority” under the Act and is covered

by its provisions.

The Division Bench expressed full agreement

with the reasoning set out in the impugned

judgment and held that the expression “public

authority” as used in the Act is of wide

amplitude and includes an authority created

by or under the Constitution of India, which

description holds good for Chief Justice of

India.

While providing for Competent Authorities

under Section 2(e), the Act specifies Chief Justice

of India as one such authority in relation to

Supreme Court, also conferring upon him the

powers to frame rules to carry out the

purposes of the said law. Chief Justice of India

besides discharging the prominent role of “head

of judiciary” also performs a multitude of tasks

specifically assigned to him under the

Constitution and various enactments. As said in

the impugned judgment, these varied roles of the

CJI are directly relatable to the fact that he

holds the office of Chief Justice of India and

heads the Supreme Court. In absence of any

indication that the office of the CJI is a separate

establishment with its own Public Information

Office under the Act, it cannot be said that the

office of the CPIO of the Supreme Court is

different from the office of the CJI. This was

upheld by 3 Judge bench Delhi High Court

headed by its Chief Justice.



3

2. Information held or under the control of Public Authority.

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi - Writ thPetition No. 7265/2009, Decided on 25

September, 2009 - Poorna Prajna Public

School, Petitioner Vs. Central Information

Commission and others, Respondents.

CORAM : Hon. : J -Sanjeev Khanna

In this case respondent No.4 had filed an

application under the RTI Act before Public

Information Officer appointed by the Department

of Education, Union Territory of Delhi. One of

the information was relating to the minutes of

Managing Committee of the petitioner Poorna

Prajna Public School, i.e. the petitioner. The said

information was not available with the

department of education and, therefore, the said

request was sent to the petitioner school. The

Petitioner school submitted that they were a

private unaided institution and not covered under

the RTI Act and respondent No. 4 had no locus

standi to ask for information. Accepting this

submission the Public Information Officer did

not furnish the information and, therefore,

respondent No. 4 filed first appeal and then

approached the Cen t ra l In fo rmat ion

Commission. Holding that petitioner school was

a public authority as defined in Sec. 2(h) of the

RTI Act, the Information Commissioner allowed

the appeal. Aggrieved by this decision the

petitioner school filed writ petition contending

inter alia that the provisions of the RTI Act do not

cover it. After hearing both sides and on perusal

of provisions under sections 2 and 22 of the RTI

Act and also the provisions under D.S.E. Rules,

the High Court held that the Officer of the

Directorate of Education is required to be

nominated as a member of the Managing

Committee of petitioner school. The Minutes of

the Managing Committee have to be circulated

and sent to the officer of the Directorate of

Education. Obviously the minutes once

circulated to the officer of the Directorate of

Education have to be regarded as information

accessible to the Directorate of Education. In

these circumstances it cannot be said that

information in the form of minutes of the meeting

of the Managing Committee are not covered

under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

Information as defined in Section 2(f) means

details or material available with the public

authority. The later portion of Section 2(f) (WPC

No.7265/2007 Page 5 ) expands the definition to

include details or material which can be accessed

under any other law from others. The two

definitions have to be read harmoniously. The

term ? held by or under the control of any public

authority in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be

read in a manner that it effectuates and is in

harmony with the definition of the term

information as defined in Section 2(f). The said

expression used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act

should not be read in a manner that it negates or

nullifies definition of the term ? information in

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is well settled that

an interpretation that renders another provision or

part thereof redundant or superfluous should be

avoided. Information as defined in Section 2(f) of

the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information

relating to any private body, which can be

accessed by public authority under any law for the

time being in force. Therefore, if a public

authority has a right and is entitled to access

information from a private body, under any other



2

Chief Justice of India is a Public

Authority u/s 2(h)

2. High Court of Delhi –(Division Bench th

Judgment) LPA No.501/2009, 12 January

2010 - Secretary General, Supreme Court of

India-Appellant Vs Subhash Chandra

Agarwal, Respondent, CORAM: J. Hon. Ajit

Shaha, Vikramajit Sen CORAM, S.

Muralidhar.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

2nd September, 2009 of the learned single Judge

(S. Ravindra Bhat, J) in the writ petition filed by

the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme

Court of India (hereinafter, “the CPIO”)

designated under the Right to Information Act,

2005 (hereinafter, “the Act”) questioning th

correctness and legality of the order dated 6

January, 2009 of the Central Information

Commission (hereinafter, “the CIC”) whereby

the request of the respondent No.1 (Subhash

Chandra Agarwal) for supply of information

concerning declaration of personal assets by the

Judges of the Supreme Court was upheld.

The subject matter at hand involves questions of

great importance concerning balance of rights of

individuals and equities against the backdrop of

paradigm changes brought about by the

legislature through the Act ushering in an era of

transparency, probity and accountability as also

the increasing expectation of the civil society that

the judicial organ, like all other public

institutions, will also offer itself for public

scrutiny. A citizen demanded information about

asset declarations by the Judges. In this context,

questions have been raised and need to be

answered as to whether a “right to information”

can be asserted and maintained within the

meaning of the expression defined in Section 2(j)

of the Act. Equally important are the questions

requiring interpretation of the expressions

“fiduciary”, as in Section 8(1)(e) and “privacy” as

in Section 8(1)(j), both used but not defined

specifically by the statute.

Upon consideration of the submissions made

before him, the learned single Judge concluded

that the Chief Justice of India is a public authority

under the Right to Information Act and holds the

information pertaining to asset declarations in

his capacity as the Chief Justice. It was also

held that the office of the Chief Justice of India is

“public authority” under the Act and is covered

by its provisions.

The Division Bench expressed full agreement

with the reasoning set out in the impugned

judgment and held that the expression “public

authority” as used in the Act is of wide

amplitude and includes an authority created

by or under the Constitution of India, which

description holds good for Chief Justice of

India.

While providing for Competent Authorities

under Section 2(e), the Act specifies Chief Justice

of India as one such authority in relation to

Supreme Court, also conferring upon him the

powers to frame rules to carry out the

purposes of the said law. Chief Justice of India

besides discharging the prominent role of “head

of judiciary” also performs a multitude of tasks

specifically assigned to him under the

Constitution and various enactments. As said in

the impugned judgment, these varied roles of the

CJI are directly relatable to the fact that he

holds the office of Chief Justice of India and

heads the Supreme Court. In absence of any

indication that the office of the CJI is a separate

establishment with its own Public Information

Office under the Act, it cannot be said that the

office of the CPIO of the Supreme Court is

different from the office of the CJI. This was

upheld by 3 Judge bench Delhi High Court

headed by its Chief Justice.

No.7265/2007 Page 9 private body will be

entitled to the same protection as is available to a

public authority including protection against

unwarranted invasion of privacy unless there is a

finding that the disclosure is in larger public

interest.

Section 8 of the RTI Act is a non-obstinate

provision, which applies notwithstanding other

sections of the RTI Act. In other words, Section 8

over-rides other provisions of the RTI Act.

Section 8 stipulates the exceptions or rules when

information is not required to be furnished.

Section 8 of the RTI Act is a complete code in

itself. Section 8 does not modify the term

information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI

Act. Whether or not Section 8 applies is required

to be examined when information under Section

2(f) is asked for. To deny information as defined

in section 2(f), the case must be brought under

any of the clauses of Section 8 of the RTI Act.

Right to information under the RTI Act is a norm

and Section 8 adumbrates exceptions i.e. when

information is not to be supplied. It is not possible

to accept the contention of the petitioner School

that information as defined in Section 2(f) need

not be furnished under the RTI Act for reasons

and grounds not covered in Section 8. This will be

contrary to the scheme of the RTI Act.

Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI

Act is to be furnished and supplied, unless a case

falls under sub-clauses (a) to (j) of Section 8(1) of

the RTI Act. Thus all information including

information furnished and Section 2(f) of the RTI

Act covers relating to private bodies available

with public authority. Further, information which

a public authority can access under any other

(WPC No.7265/2007 Page 10 ) law from a private

body is also information under section 2(f). The

public authority should be entitled to ask for the

said information under law from the private body.

Details available with a public authority about a

private body are information and details which

can be accessed by the public authority from a

private body are also information but the law

should permit and entitle the public authority to

ask for the said details from a private body.

Restrictions, conditions and prerequisites

imposed and prescribed by law should be

satisfied. The question whether information

should be denied requires reference to Section 8

of the RTI Act. In these circumstances, it cannot

be said that information in the form of minutes of

the meeting of the management committee are not

covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In view

of the above findings, the question whether the

petitioner school is a public authority is left open

and not decided. Writ Petition has no merit and is

accordingly dismissed. No costs.

3. Opportunity & hearing to PIO - necessary before imposing Penalty

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi - W.P. No.

7121 of 2007, Dated: 16-04- 2009, Madhu Jain,

Pet i t ioner Vs. Central Information

Commissioner and another, Respondents.

CORAM: Hon. J . -Ravindra Bhat .

One Dr. Subarto Roy applied for information and

inspection of the record relating to his transfer.

The petitioner was functioning as the PIO. He

marked a photocopy of the application to the

concerned officer. Some of the queries were

satisfied but the records were not made available

by the concerned authority in spite of various

reminders by applicant. The applicant Subarto

Roy therefore, filed an appeal, which was

considered, and an order was made. In spite of

that the record was not made available and,



5

law, it is ? information as defined in Section 2(f)

of the RTI Act. The term ? held by the or under

the control of the public authority used in Section

2(j) of the RTI Act will include information which

the public authority is entitled to access under any

other law from a private body. A private body

need not be a public authority and the said term

? private body has been used to distinguish and

in contradiction to the term ? public authority as

defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Thus,

information which a public authority is entitled to

access, under any law, from private body, is

information as defined under Section 2(f) of the

RTI Act and has to be furnished.(Para-8). Third

Party - It may be appropriate here to refer to the

definition of the term third party in Section 2(n) of

the RTI Act which reads as under:- ? 2(n).

? third party means a person other than the

citizen making a request for information and

includes a public authority. Thus the term third

party includes not only the public authority but

also any private body or person other than the

citizen making request for the information. The

petitioner School, a private body, will be a third

party under Section 2(n) of the RTI Act. The

above interpretation is in consonance with the

provisions of Sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI

Act. Section 11 prescribes the procedure to be

followed when a public information officer is

required to disclose information which relates to

or has been supplied by a third party and has been

treated as confidential by the said third party.

Section 19(4) stipulates that when an appeal is

preferred before the CIC relating to information

of a third party, reasonable opportunity of hearing

will be granted to the third party before the appeal

is decided. Third party as stated above includes a

private body. As held above, a public authority is

not a private body. A private body or third party

can take objections under Section 8 of the RTI Act

before the public information officer or the CIC.

In terms of Section 11(4) of the RTI Act, an order

under Section 11(3) rejecting objections of the

third party is appealable under Section 19 of the

RTI Act before the CIC.

Section 22 of the RTI Act is an overriding

clause but it does not modify any other statute or

enactment, on the question of right and power of a

public authority to call for information relating to

a private body. A bar, prohibition or restriction in

a statutory enactment, before information can be

accessed by a public authority, continues to apply

and is not obliterated by section 22 of the RTI Act.

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act does not bring about

any modification or amendment in any other

enactment, which bars or prohibits or imposes

pre-condition for accessing information from

private bodies. Rather, it upholds and accepts the

said position when it uses the expression which

can be accessed i.e. the public authority should be

in a position and entitled to ask for the said

information. Section 22 of the RTI Act, an

overriding provision does not militate against the

said interpretation for there is no contradiction or

conflict between the provisions of Section 2(f) of

the RTI Act and other statutory enactments/law.

Section 22 will apply only when there is a conflict

between the RTI Act and Official Secrets Act or

any other enactment. As a private body, the

Petitioner School is entitled to plead that they

cannot be compelled to furnish information

because the public authority is not entitled to

information/documents under the law. The

petitioner school can also claim that information

should not be furnished because it falls under any

of the sub-clauses to Section 8 of the RTI Act. Any

such claim, when made, has to be considered by

the public information officer, first appellate

authority and the CIC. In other words, a WPC



4

No.7265/2007 Page 9 private body will be

entitled to the same protection as is available to a

public authority including protection against

unwarranted invasion of privacy unless there is a

finding that the disclosure is in larger public

interest.

Section 8 of the RTI Act is a non-obstinate

provision, which applies notwithstanding other

sections of the RTI Act. In other words, Section 8

over-rides other provisions of the RTI Act.

Section 8 stipulates the exceptions or rules when

information is not required to be furnished.

Section 8 of the RTI Act is a complete code in

itself. Section 8 does not modify the term

information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI

Act. Whether or not Section 8 applies is required

to be examined when information under Section

2(f) is asked for. To deny information as defined

in section 2(f), the case must be brought under

any of the clauses of Section 8 of the RTI Act.

Right to information under the RTI Act is a norm

and Section 8 adumbrates exceptions i.e. when

information is not to be supplied. It is not possible

to accept the contention of the petitioner School

that information as defined in Section 2(f) need

not be furnished under the RTI Act for reasons

and grounds not covered in Section 8. This will be

contrary to the scheme of the RTI Act.

Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI

Act is to be furnished and supplied, unless a case

falls under sub-clauses (a) to (j) of Section 8(1) of

the RTI Act. Thus all information including

information furnished and Section 2(f) of the RTI

Act covers relating to private bodies available

with public authority. Further, information which

a public authority can access under any other

(WPC No.7265/2007 Page 10 ) law from a private

body is also information under section 2(f). The

public authority should be entitled to ask for the

said information under law from the private body.

Details available with a public authority about a

private body are information and details which

can be accessed by the public authority from a

private body are also information but the law

should permit and entitle the public authority to

ask for the said details from a private body.

Restrictions, conditions and prerequisites

imposed and prescribed by law should be

satisfied. The question whether information

should be denied requires reference to Section 8

of the RTI Act. In these circumstances, it cannot

be said that information in the form of minutes of

the meeting of the management committee are not

covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In view

of the above findings, the question whether the

petitioner school is a public authority is left open

and not decided. Writ Petition has no merit and is

accordingly dismissed. No costs.

3. Opportunity & hearing to PIO - necessary before imposing Penalty


7121 of 2007, Dated: 16-04- 2009, Madhu Jain,


Commissioner and another, Respondents.

CORAM: Hon. J . -Ravindra Bhat .

One Dr. Subarto Roy applied for information and

inspection of the record relating to his transfer.

The petitioner was functioning as the PIO. He

marked a photocopy of the application to the

concerned officer. Some of the queries were

satisfied but the records were not made available

by the concerned authority in spite of various

reminders by applicant. The applicant Subarto

Roy therefore, filed an appeal, which was

considered, and an order was made. In spite of

that the record was not made available and,



5

law, it is ? information as defined in Section 2(f)

of the RTI Act. The term ? held by the or under

the control of the public authority used in Section

2(j) of the RTI Act will include information which

the public authority is entitled to access under any

other law from a private body. A private body

need not be a public authority and the said term

? private body has been used to distinguish and

in contradiction to the term ? public authority as

defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Thus,

information which a public authority is entitled to

access, under any law, from private body, is

information as defined under Section 2(f) of the

RTI Act and has to be furnished.(Para-8). Third

Party - It may be appropriate here to refer to the

definition of the term third party in Section 2(n) of

the RTI Act which reads as under:- ? 2(n).

? third party means a person other than the

citizen making a request for information and

includes a public authority. Thus the term third

party includes not only the public authority but

also any private body or person other than the

citizen making request for the information. The

petitioner School, a private body, will be a third

party under Section 2(n) of the RTI Act. The

above interpretation is in consonance with the

provisions of Sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI

Act. Section 11 prescribes the procedure to be

followed when a public information officer is

required to disclose information which relates to

or has been supplied by a third party and has been

treated as confidential by the said third party.

Section 19(4) stipulates that when an appeal is

preferred before the CIC relating to information

of a third party, reasonable opportunity of hearing

will be granted to the third party before the appeal

is decided. Third party as stated above includes a

private body. As held above, a public authority is

not a private body. A private body or third party

can take objections under Section 8 of the RTI Act

before the public information officer or the CIC.

In terms of Section 11(4) of the RTI Act, an order

under Section 11(3) rejecting objections of the

third party is appealable under Section 19 of the

RTI Act before the CIC.

Section 22 of the RTI Act is an overriding

clause but it does not modify any other statute or

enactment, on the question of right and power of a

public authority to call for information relating to

a private body. A bar, prohibition or restriction in

a statutory enactment, before information can be

accessed by a public authority, continues to apply

and is not obliterated by section 22 of the RTI Act.

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act does not bring about

any modification or amendment in any other

enactment, which bars or prohibits or imposes

pre-condition for accessing information from

private bodies. Rather, it upholds and accepts the

said position when it uses the expression which

can be accessed i.e. the public authority should be

in a position and entitled to ask for the said

information. Section 22 of the RTI Act, an

overriding provision does not militate against the

said interpretation for there is no contradiction or

conflict between the provisions of Section 2(f) of

the RTI Act and other statutory enactments/law.

Section 22 will apply only when there is a conflict

between the RTI Act and Official Secrets Act or

any other enactment. As a private body, the

Petitioner School is entitled to plead that they

cannot be compelled to furnish information

because the public authority is not entitled to

information/documents under the law. The

petitioner school can also claim that information

should not be furnished because it falls under any

of the sub-clauses to Section 8 of the RTI Act. Any

such claim, when made, has to be considered by

the public information officer, first appellate

authority and the CIC. In other words, a WPC



4

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the

Central Information Commission, which issued

certain directions after hearing both the sides.

Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed writ

petition before the High Court contending inter

alia that there was some discrepancy with regard

to the destruction of records and therefore penalty

would be required to be imposed Under section

20 of the RTI Act. After considering the

provisions of Section 7(1) and 20 of the Act, the

High Court held that there might be some

variation or inconsistency as to when records

were destroyed, that does not show any lack of

bona fides on the part of the C.P.I.O. or the

Appellate Authority. No inference under Art. 226

of the Constitution is called for. The petition was

dismissed accordingly.

6. Penalty to be imposed when delay without reasonable cause is established

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi -W.P.(C)

3845/2007, Dated: 28-04-2009, Mujibur

rehman, Petitioner Vs Central Information

Commission, Respondent, CORAM: Hon. J. -

Ravindra Bhat

In this case the petitioner had applied for

information on 29-11-05. He was made to wait

and forced to file appeals to first appellate

authority and later to the CIC. The internal

process, within the third respondent corporation,

apparently were insensitive to the queries elicited

and eventually after the CIC issued notice did the

third respondent furnished the information. It as

in these circumstances that CIC issued notice to

the PIO calling upon him why penal action should

not be taken. That delay occurred beyond

stipulated period in furnishing information is

self-evident. Both the orders categorically record

that there was delay. The only question therefore,

was whether after issuing the notice and hearing th

the concerned deemed PIO the 6 respondent, the

CIC acted within its jurisdiction in not imposing

the penalty of Rs.25,000/-.

The High Court observed that a close textual

reading of Section 20 itself reveals that there are

three circumstances, whereby a penalty can be

imposed, i.e.

a) Refusal to receive an application for

information;

b) Not furnishing information within the time

specified; and

c) Denying mala fidely the request for

information or knowingly given incorrect,

incomplete or misleading information for

destroying information that was the subject

matter of the request.

Each of the conditions is prefaced by the

infraction 'without reasonable cause'. The CIC in

its second impugned order clearly recorded that ththe 6 respondent did not furnish any reasonable

cause for the delay and that this fact stood

'established'. It desisted from imposing the

penalty which it was undoubtedly competent to

under Section 20 (1). It however, recommended

that action should be taken against the concerned

Public Information Officer. That part of the order

is not in dispute. In these circumstances it was

held that even though the CIC recommended

disciplinary action under Section20 (1), its denial

of any penalty order under Section 20, in the

considered opinion of this Court, cannot be

upheld. Holding this the penalty amount was

worked out to Rs.25,000/-. The third respondent th

was directed to deduct the same from the 6

respondent's salary in 5 equal instalments and

deposit the amount with the Commission.



7

therefore, applicant Subarto Roy appealed to

CIC. Initially the Commission was satisfied that

the delay of 8 days was attributable to the

petitioner and did not require further

investigation or penalty. However, subsequently

the Commission held that the petitioner had

rendered herself liable for delay and accordingly

she was directed to deposit Rs. 13000/- as

penalty. Aggrieved by this order of penalty, the

petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held that

a joint reading of two orders does not indicate that

show-cause-notice was issued to other

individuals and not the petitioner for the

perceived delay in responding to the queries. The

said two individuals and not the petitioner were

heard on the next date of hearing, in response to

the show cause notice. Yet the commission,

ignoring its earlier order, absolving the petitioner

of any delay proceeded to impose Rs. 13000/- as

penalty on her. This was completely in ignorance

of the previous order, which had clearly

exonerated any wrong doing by her. In the

circumstances the petitioner's grievance is well

founded and the writ petition has to succeed.

Accordingly the writ petition was allowed and the

order of Commission was quashed.

4. Natural Justice


6094 of 2007, Dated: 08-04- 2009, J.P. Morgan

India Pvt. Ltd., Petitioner Vs. Central

Information Commission and others,

Respondents. CORAM: Hon. J. - Ravindra

Bhat.

In this case the petitioner claimed to be aggrieved

by the order of the Central Information

Commission and the letter issued by the

respondent No.4. The ground on which the writ

proceeding was preferred was principally that the

Central Information Commission had directed

disclosure of the entire report pertaining to the

applicant, to the fifth respondent Mr. Milap

Choraria, who had applied for information. It was

submitted that the order should have been

preceded by notice to the petitioner who should

have been afforded an opportunity to participate

in the proceedings before the Public Information

Officer. After hearing both sides the High Court

observed that the CIC should have afforded the thpetitioner and the 5 respondent of the

opportunity of being heard. It was held that CIC

should re-examine the matter and pass

appropriate orders on the fifth respondent's

appeal after affording the petitioner as well as the

fifth respondent a fresh opportunity of hearing.

The CIC was directed to endeavor to complete the

hearing and pass orders as early as possible

preferably within three months.

5. Unavailability of Records

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi - W.P.(c)

6637/2007, Dated : 30-01-2009, Mrs. Sadhana,

Petitioner Vs. Central Information and ors

Respondents. CORAM : Hon. J.- Ravindra

Bhat.

In this case the petitioner had sought information

regarding the complaint she had filed before the

Delhi Police. The C.P.I.O. intimated the

petitioner that no records were available since it

was destroyed by an order dated 17-09-2004.



6

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the

Central Information Commission, which issued

certain directions after hearing both the sides.

Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed writ

petition before the High Court contending inter

alia that there was some discrepancy with regard

to the destruction of records and therefore penalty

would be required to be imposed Under section

20 of the RTI Act. After considering the

provisions of Section 7(1) and 20 of the Act, the

High Court held that there might be some

variation or inconsistency as to when records

were destroyed, that does not show any lack of

bona fides on the part of the C.P.I.O. or the

Appellate Authority. No inference under Art. 226

of the Constitution is called for. The petition was

dismissed accordingly.

6. Penalty to be imposed when delay without reasonable cause is established

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi -W.P.(C)

3845/2007, Dated: 28-04-2009, Mujibur

rehman, Petitioner Vs Central Information

Commission, Respondent, CORAM: Hon. J. -

Ravindra Bhat

In this case the petitioner had applied for

information on 29-11-05. He was made to wait

and forced to file appeals to first appellate

authority and later to the CIC. The internal

process, within the third respondent corporation,

apparently were insensitive to the queries elicited

and eventually after the CIC issued notice did the

third respondent furnished the information. It as

in these circumstances that CIC issued notice to

the PIO calling upon him why penal action should

not be taken. That delay occurred beyond

stipulated period in furnishing information is

self-evident. Both the orders categorically record

that there was delay. The only question therefore,

was whether after issuing the notice and hearing th

the concerned deemed PIO the 6 respondent, the

CIC acted within its jurisdiction in not imposing

the penalty of Rs.25,000/-.

The High Court observed that a close textual

reading of Section 20 itself reveals that there are

three circumstances, whereby a penalty can be

imposed, i.e.

a) Refusal to receive an application for

information;

b) Not furnishing information within the time

specified; and

c) Denying mala fidely the request for

information or knowingly given incorrect,

incomplete or misleading information for

destroying information that was the subject

matter of the request.

Each of the conditions is prefaced by the

infraction 'without reasonable cause'. The CIC in

its second impugned order clearly recorded that ththe 6 respondent did not furnish any reasonable

cause for the delay and that this fact stood

'established'. It desisted from imposing the

penalty which it was undoubtedly competent to

under Section 20 (1). It however, recommended

that action should be taken against the concerned

Public Information Officer. That part of the order

is not in dispute. In these circumstances it was

held that even though the CIC recommended

disciplinary action under Section20 (1), its denial

of any penalty order under Section 20, in the

considered opinion of this Court, cannot be

upheld. Holding this the penalty amount was

worked out to Rs.25,000/-. The third respondent th

was directed to deduct the same from the 6

respondent's salary in 5 equal instalments and

deposit the amount with the Commission.



7

therefore, applicant Subarto Roy appealed to

CIC. Initially the Commission was satisfied that

the delay of 8 days was attributable to the

petitioner and did not require further

investigation or penalty. However, subsequently

the Commission held that the petitioner had

rendered herself liable for delay and accordingly

she was directed to deposit Rs. 13000/- as

penalty. Aggrieved by this order of penalty, the

petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held that

a joint reading of two orders does not indicate that

show-cause-notice was issued to other

individuals and not the petitioner for the

perceived delay in responding to the queries. The

said two individuals and not the petitioner were

heard on the next date of hearing, in response to

the show cause notice. Yet the commission,

ignoring its earlier order, absolving the petitioner

of any delay proceeded to impose Rs. 13000/- as

penalty on her. This was completely in ignorance

of the previous order, which had clearly

exonerated any wrong doing by her. In the

circumstances the petitioner's grievance is well

founded and the writ petition has to succeed.

Accordingly the writ petition was allowed and the

order of Commission was quashed.

4. Natural Justice


6094 of 2007, Dated: 08-04- 2009, J.P. Morgan

India Pvt. Ltd., Petitioner Vs. Central


Respondents. CORAM: Hon. J. - Ravindra

Bhat.

In this case the petitioner claimed to be aggrieved

by the order of the Central Information

Commission and the letter issued by the

respondent No.4. The ground on which the writ

proceeding was preferred was principally that the

Central Information Commission had directed

disclosure of the entire report pertaining to the

applicant, to the fifth respondent Mr. Milap

Choraria, who had applied for information. It was

submitted that the order should have been

preceded by notice to the petitioner who should

have been afforded an opportunity to participate

in the proceedings before the Public Information

Officer. After hearing both sides the High Court

observed that the CIC should have afforded the thpetitioner and the 5 respondent of the

opportunity of being heard. It was held that CIC

should re-examine the matter and pass

appropriate orders on the fifth respondent's

appeal after affording the petitioner as well as the

fifth respondent a fresh opportunity of hearing.

The CIC was directed to endeavor to complete the

hearing and pass orders as early as possible

preferably within three months.

5. Unavailability of Records

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi - W.P.(c)

6637/2007, Dated : 30-01-2009, Mrs. Sadhana,

Petitioner Vs. Central Information and ors

Respondents. CORAM : Hon. J.- Ravindra

Bhat.

In this case the petitioner had sought information

regarding the complaint she had filed before the

Delhi Police. The C.P.I.O. intimated the

petitioner that no records were available since it

was destroyed by an order dated 17-09-2004.



6

recovery, if any, is complete in every respect.

The Petitioner contends that the first Respondent

was correct in allowing disclosure of

information, by holding that Sections 8(1)(j) did

not justify withholding of the said information,

but incorrectly applied Sec 8(1) (h) of the Act. He

submits that the disclosure of the said information

could not in any way impede the investigation

process and that the Respondents have not given

any reasons as to how such disclosure would

hamper investigation. On the other hand, he

contends, the information would only help in

absolving himself from the false prosecution and

criminal harassment. Moreover, he contends that

under Section 10 of the Act non-exempt

information could have been provided to him

after severing it from the exempt information for

non compliance of the order of the Central

Information Commission.

The petitioner in this writ petition requests this

Court to partially quash the order of the first

Respondent dated 8th May 2006 in so far as it

directs disclosure after the entire process of

investigation and tax recovery is completed; to

direct the other respondents to forthwith supply

the information sought; to direct the CIC to

impose penalties under Section 20 and to

compensate him for damages suffered due to non

supply of information. It was urged that the CIC,

after appreciating that there was no merit in the

plea regarding applicability of Section 8 (1) (h),

and being satisfied, should have not imposed the

condition regarding completion of proceedings,

which could take years.

Court Observations

The citizen and information seekers have, subject

to a few exceptions, an overriding right to be

given information on matters in the possession of

the state and public agencies that are covered by

the Act. As is reflected in its preambular

paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote

transparency, contain corruption and to hold the

Government and i ts instrumental i t ies

accountable to the governed. This spirit of the Act

must be borne in mind while construing the

provisions contained therein. Access to

information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule

and exemptions under Section 8, the exception.

Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental

right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It

should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow

the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption

from releasing information is granted if it would

impede the process of investigation or the

prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the

mere existence of an investigation process cannot

be a ground for refusal of the information; the

authority withholding information must show

satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such

information would hamper the investigation

process. Such reasons should be germane, and the

opinion of the process being hampered should be

reasonable and based on some material. Sans this

consideration, Section 8 (1) (h) and other such

provisions would become the haven for dodging

demands for information. A rights based

enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the

Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The

contextual background and history of the Act is

such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8,

relieving the authorities from the obligation to

provide information, constitute restrictions on the

exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore,

such exemption provisions have to be construed

in their terms;

In the present case, the orders of the three

respondents did not reflect any reasons, why the

investigation process would be hampered. The

direction of the CIC shows is that the information



9

7. Investigation Information u/s 8(1)(h)

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi - WP(C) No.

3114/2007, Dated :03-12-2007, Bhagat Singh,

P e t i t i o n e r V s C h i e f I n f o r m a t i o n

Commissioner And Ors, Respondents

CORAM : Hon'ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

The petitioner was married in 2000 to Smt. Saroj

Nirmal. In November 2000 she filed a criminal

complaint alleging that she had spent/paid as

dowry an amount of Rs. Ten Lakhs. Alleging that

these claims were false, the Petitioner, with a

view to defend the criminal prosecution launched

against him, he approached the Income Tax

Department with a tax evasion petition (TEP)

dated 24.09.2003. Thereafter, in 2004 the Income

Tax Department summoned the Petitioner's wife

to present her case before them. Meanwhile, the

Petitioner made repeated requests to the Director

of Income Tax (Investigation) to know the status

of the hearing and TEP proceedings. On failing to

get a response from the second and third

Respondents, he moved an application under the

RTI Act in November, 2005. He requested for the

information: (i) Fate of Petitioner's complaint

(tax evasion petition) dated 24.09.2003 (ii) What

is the other source of income of petitioner's wife

Smt. Saroj Nimal than from teaching as a primary

teacher in a private school iii) What action the

Department had taken against Smt. Saroj Nimal

after issuing a notice u/s 131 of the Income Tax

Act, 1961, pursuant to the said Tax Evasion

Petition ?

The application was rejected by the second

Respondent (the Public Information Officer,

designated under the Act by the Income Tax

Department) on 10th January 2006 under Section

8 (1) of the Act, by reasoning that the information

sought was personal in nature, relating to dowry

and did not further public interest.

The petitioner, thereafter, appealed to third

Respondent- the Appellate Authority which too

rejected his request to access the information.

While doing so, not only did he reiterate section

8(1)(j) as a ground for rejection but also observed

that the information sought could also be denied

under Section 8 (1)(h).

Against the order of the Appellate Authority, the

petitioner filed a second Appeal on 1st March,

2006, before the Respondent No.1, the Central

Information Commission (hereafter referred as

CIC) praying for setting aside the Orders of

Respondent No.2 and 3. The petitioner sought the

following reliefs: a) issue directions to

Respondent No.2 and 3 to furnish information, b)

to order an inquiry against Respondents No. 2 and

3 for not implementing the Right to Information

Act properly, c) to impose penalties and

disciplinary action against Respondent No.2 and

3 under Section 20 of the RTI Act and d) to award

cost of proceedings to be recovered from

Respondent No.2 and 3.

The CIC, on 8th May 2006 allowed the second

appeal and set aside the rejection of information,

and the exemption clause 8(1) (j) cited by

Respondents No.2 and 3. The CIC further held

that as the investigation on TEP has been

conducted by DIT (Inv), the relevant report is the

outcome of public action which needs to be

disclosed. This, therefore, cannot be exempted

u/s 8(1) (j) as interpreted by the appellate

authority. Accordingly, DIT (Inv) was directed to

disclose the report as per the provision u/s 10(1)

and (2), after the entire process of investigation

and tax recovery, if any, is complete in every

respect the entire process of investigation and tax



8

recovery, if any, is complete in every respect.

The Petitioner contends that the first Respondent

was correct in allowing disclosure of

information, by holding that Sections 8(1)(j) did

not justify withholding of the said information,

but incorrectly applied Sec 8(1) (h) of the Act. He

submits that the disclosure of the said information

could not in any way impede the investigation

process and that the Respondents have not given

any reasons as to how such disclosure would

hamper investigation. On the other hand, he

contends, the information would only help in

absolving himself from the false prosecution and

criminal harassment. Moreover, he contends that

under Section 10 of the Act non-exempt

information could have been provided to him

after severing it from the exempt information for

non compliance of the order of the Central

Information Commission.

The petitioner in this writ petition requests this

Court to partially quash the order of the first

Respondent dated 8th May 2006 in so far as it

directs disclosure after the entire process of

investigation and tax recovery is completed; to

direct the other respondents to forthwith supply

the information sought; to direct the CIC to

impose penalties under Section 20 and to

compensate him for damages suffered due to non

supply of information. It was urged that the CIC,

after appreciating that there was no merit in the

plea regarding applicability of Section 8 (1) (h),

and being satisfied, should have not imposed the

condition regarding completion of proceedings,

which could take years.

Court Observations

The citizen and information seekers have, subject

to a few exceptions, an overriding right to be

given information on matters in the possession of

the state and public agencies that are covered by

the Act. As is reflected in its preambular

paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote

transparency, contain corruption and to hold the

Government and i ts instrumental i t ies

accountable to the governed. This spirit of the Act

must be borne in mind while construing the

provisions contained therein. Access to

information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule

and exemptions under Section 8, the exception.

Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental

right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It

should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow

the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption

from releasing information is granted if it would

impede the process of investigation or the

prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the

mere existence of an investigation process cannot

be a ground for refusal of the information; the

authority withholding information must show

satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such

information would hamper the investigation

process. Such reasons should be germane, and the

opinion of the process being hampered should be

reasonable and based on some material. Sans this

consideration, Section 8 (1) (h) and other such

provisions would become the haven for dodging

demands for information. A rights based

enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the

Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The

contextual background and history of the Act is

such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8,

relieving the authorities from the obligation to

provide information, constitute restrictions on the

exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore,

such exemption provisions have to be construed

in their terms;

In the present case, the orders of the three

respondents did not reflect any reasons, why the

investigation process would be hampered. The

direction of the CIC shows is that the information



9

7. Investigation Information u/s 8(1)(h)

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi - WP(C) No.

3114/2007, Dated :03-12-2007, Bhagat Singh,

P e t i t i o n e r V s C h i e f I n f o r m a t i o n

Commissioner And Ors, Respondents

CORAM : Hon'ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

The petitioner was married in 2000 to Smt. Saroj

Nirmal. In November 2000 she filed a criminal

complaint alleging that she had spent/paid as

dowry an amount of Rs. Ten Lakhs. Alleging that

these claims were false, the Petitioner, with a

view to defend the criminal prosecution launched

against him, he approached the Income Tax

Department with a tax evasion petition (TEP)

dated 24.09.2003. Thereafter, in 2004 the Income

Tax Department summoned the Petitioner's wife

to present her case before them. Meanwhile, the

Petitioner made repeated requests to the Director

of Income Tax (Investigation) to know the status

of the hearing and TEP proceedings. On failing to

get a response from the second and third

Respondents, he moved an application under the

RTI Act in November, 2005. He requested for the

information: (i) Fate of Petitioner's complaint

(tax evasion petition) dated 24.09.2003 (ii) What

is the other source of income of petitioner's wife

Smt. Saroj Nimal than from teaching as a primary

teacher in a private school iii) What action the

Department had taken against Smt. Saroj Nimal

after issuing a notice u/s 131 of the Income Tax

Act, 1961, pursuant to the said Tax Evasion

Petition ?

The application was rejected by the second

Respondent (the Public Information Officer,

designated under the Act by the Income Tax

Department) on 10th January 2006 under Section

8 (1) of the Act, by reasoning that the information

sought was personal in nature, relating to dowry

and did not further public interest.

The petitioner, thereafter, appealed to third

Respondent- the Appellate Authority which too

rejected his request to access the information.

While doing so, not only did he reiterate section

8(1)(j) as a ground for rejection but also observed

that the information sought could also be denied

under Section 8 (1)(h).

Against the order of the Appellate Authority, the

petitioner filed a second Appeal on 1st March,

2006, before the Respondent No.1, the Central

Information Commission (hereafter referred as

CIC) praying for setting aside the Orders of

Respondent No.2 and 3. The petitioner sought the

following reliefs: a) issue directions to

Respondent No.2 and 3 to furnish information, b)

to order an inquiry against Respondents No. 2 and

3 for not implementing the Right to Information

Act properly, c) to impose penalties and

disciplinary action against Respondent No.2 and

3 under Section 20 of the RTI Act and d) to award

cost of proceedings to be recovered from

Respondent No.2 and 3.

The CIC, on 8th May 2006 allowed the second

appeal and set aside the rejection of information,

and the exemption clause 8(1) (j) cited by

Respondents No.2 and 3. The CIC further held

that as the investigation on TEP has been

conducted by DIT (Inv), the relevant report is the

outcome of public action which needs to be

disclosed. This, therefore, cannot be exempted

u/s 8(1) (j) as interpreted by the appellate

authority. Accordingly, DIT (Inv) was directed to

disclose the report as per the provision u/s 10(1)

and (2), after the entire process of investigation

and tax recovery, if any, is complete in every

respect the entire process of investigation and tax



8

does not envisage a post decisional show-cause-

notice. Show cause notice has to be issued before

a penalty order is passed and before any final

findings are recorded or imposing penalty. Under

these circumstances, the order cannot be

sustained and requires to be set aside.

Accordingly the matter was remanded back to the

CIC to decide the question whether penalty

should be imposed on the petitioner under section

20(1) of the RTI Act.

9. Privacy u/s 8(1)(j)

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi - W.P.(C)

No. 803/2009, Decided on 01-07-2009, Vijay

Prakash, Petitioner Vs. UNI and others,

Respondents. CORAM: Hon. J. Ravindra

Bhat.

1. The facts in this writ petition were that the

petitioner was a former officer of the IAF. He got

married in 2001. He had sought resignation

which was granted on 30-09-2001. His wife was

inducted in the Defence Research Development

Organization (DRDO) and was posted at

Varanasi. Eventually differences cropped up

between the two and his wife applied for divorce.

The petitioner applied for information in respect

of his wife's service record pertaining to all leave

application forms submitted by her, attested

copies of, nomination and other official

documents with financial implications etc. The

information application was declined by PIO on

the ground that the particulars related to personal

information, exempted under section 8(1)(j) of

the RTI Act and that disclosure of such

information had no relation with any public

activity or interest and that it would cause

unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the

individual. The petitioner preferred an appeal

which was rejected by the Appellate Authority.

Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred Second

Appeal to the CIC. The second appeal also came

to be rejected upholding the determination of the

lower authorities. It is against this second appeal

order the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

2. After hearing both sides and after considering

the provisions under sections 2, 8 and 11 of the

RTI Act, the High Court observed that the public

interest argument of the petitioner is premised on

the plea that his wife is a public servant, he is in

litigation with her, and requires information, in

the course of a private dispute to establish the

truth of his allegations. The CIC has held that

there is no public interest element in the

disclosure of such personal information in the

possession of the information provider. The

petitioner has not been able to justify how such

disclosure would be in public interest; the

litigation is, pure and simple, a private one. The

basic protection afforded by virtue of the

exemption from disclosure enacted under section

8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed. Under these

circumstances the impugned order cannot be set

aside and writ petition will have to be dismissed.

Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.

10. Inspection of record with counsel

High Court Delhi at New Delhi - WP(C) No.

8228 of 2007, Decided on 16-11-2007, Suresh

Chand Gupta Through Ms Suman Chauhan,

A d v o c a t e . P e t i t i o n e r V s . D e p u t y

Commissioner of Police & Ors Respondent

CORAM : Hon. J. Ravindra Bhat

1. In this case the petitioner had requested that the

Deputy Commissioner of Police should permit



11

needs to be released only after the investigation

and recovery is complete. Facially, the order

supports the petitioner's contention that the claim

for exemption made by respondent Nos. 2 and 3

are untenable. Section 8(1) (j) relates only to

investigation and prosecution and not to

recovery. Recovery in tax matters, in the usual

circumstances is a time consuming affair, and to

withhold information till that eventuality, after

the entire proceedings, despite the ruling that

investigations are not hampered by information

disclosure, is illogical.

Hon. High Court took a serious note of the two

year delay in releasing information, the lack of

adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public

Information Officer and the Appellate Authority

and the lack of application of mind in relation to

the nature of information sought. The materials

on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach

of the second and third respondent in releasing

the information sought. However, declined to

issue a direction to the Central Information

Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of

the Act as the Petitioner has not been able to

demonstrate that they malafidely denied the

information sought.

8. Natural Justice - Section 20(1) of RTI Act does not envisage a post decisional show-cause-notice.


No. 5204/2008, Decided on 02-07-2009- Dr.

(Mrs) Sarla Rajput, Petitioner Vs. Central

I n f o r m a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n e r & O r s

Respondents. CORAM: Hon'ble : J. Sanjeev

Khanna

1. In this case respondent No. 4 had filed an

application under Right To Information Act 2005

and at that time the petitioner was the Public

Information Officer who processed the

application and furnished reply. Not satisfied,

the respondent No. 4 preferred first appeal and

then approached the Central Information

Commission by way of second Appeal. The CIC th

by order dated 15 December 2007 allowed the

second appeal making observations against the

stand taken by the National Council for

Educational Research and Training (NCERT for

short). By the same order the CIC also imposed a

penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner under

section 20(1) of the RTI Act..

2. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed the

present writ petition contending inter alia that

she was not given reasonable opportunity of

being heard before imposing penalty on her.

3. After hearing both sides the High Court

observed that proviso to Section 20(1) requires

and mandates reasonable opportunity of being

heard before a public information officer is

burdened with penalty. Further penalty under

section 20(1) can be imposed when conditions

mentioned therein are satisfied. Penalty is not

automatic or mandatory when an appeal is

a l lowed by the Cent ra l In format ion

Commissioner. The petitioner had retired from

service and did not have any information about

pendency of the appeal before the CIC. There is

clear violation of provisos to Section 20(1) and,

therefore, order of penalty cannot be sustained. It

was urged on behalf of CIC that the order as

regards recovery of penalty from the pension was

pass pertaining to the application for review. thAfter order dated 15 December 2007 was passed

a show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioner

on 15-01-2008. In this regard the High Court

observed that the RTI Act under section 20(1)



10

does not envisage a post decisional show-cause-

notice. Show cause notice has to be issued before

a penalty order is passed and before any final

findings are recorded or imposing penalty. Under

these circumstances, the order cannot be

sustained and requires to be set aside.

Accordingly the matter was remanded back to the

CIC to decide the question whether penalty

should be imposed on the petitioner under section

20(1) of the RTI Act.

9. Privacy u/s 8(1)(j)


No. 803/2009, Decided on 01-07-2009, Vijay

Prakash, Petitioner Vs. UNI and others,

Respondents. CORAM: Hon. J. Ravindra

Bhat.

1. The facts in this writ petition were that the

petitioner was a former officer of the IAF. He got

married in 2001. He had sought resignation

which was granted on 30-09-2001. His wife was

inducted in the Defence Research Development

Organization (DRDO) and was posted at

Varanasi. Eventually differences cropped up

between the two and his wife applied for divorce.

The petitioner applied for information in respect

of his wife's service record pertaining to all leave

application forms submitted by her, attested

copies of, nomination and other official

documents with financial implications etc. The

information application was declined by PIO on

the ground that the particulars related to personal

information, exempted under section 8(1)(j) of

the RTI Act and that disclosure of such

information had no relation with any public

activity or interest and that it would cause

unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the

individual. The petitioner preferred an appeal

which was rejected by the Appellate Authority.

Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred Second

Appeal to the CIC. The second appeal also came

to be rejected upholding the determination of the

lower authorities. It is against this second appeal

order the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

2. After hearing both sides and after considering

the provisions under sections 2, 8 and 11 of the

RTI Act, the High Court observed that the public

interest argument of the petitioner is premised on

the plea that his wife is a public servant, he is in

litigation with her, and requires information, in

the course of a private dispute to establish the

truth of his allegations. The CIC has held that

there is no public interest element in the

disclosure of such personal information in the

possession of the information provider. The

petitioner has not been able to justify how such

disclosure would be in public interest; the

litigation is, pure and simple, a private one. The

basic protection afforded by virtue of the

exemption from disclosure enacted under section

8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed. Under these

circumstances the impugned order cannot be set

aside and writ petition will have to be dismissed.

Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.

10. Inspection of record with counsel

High Court Delhi at New Delhi - WP(C) No.

8228 of 2007, Decided on 16-11-2007, Suresh

Chand Gupta Through Ms Suman Chauhan,

A d v o c a t e . P e t i t i o n e r V s . D e p u t y

Commissioner of Police & Ors Respondent

CORAM : Hon. J. Ravindra Bhat

1. In this case the petitioner had requested that the

Deputy Commissioner of Police should permit



11

needs to be released only after the investigation

and recovery is complete. Facially, the order

supports the petitioner's contention that the claim

for exemption made by respondent Nos. 2 and 3

are untenable. Section 8(1) (j) relates only to

investigation and prosecution and not to

recovery. Recovery in tax matters, in the usual

circumstances is a time consuming affair, and to

withhold information till that eventuality, after

the entire proceedings, despite the ruling that

investigations are not hampered by information

disclosure, is illogical.

Hon. High Court took a serious note of the two

year delay in releasing information, the lack of

adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public

Information Officer and the Appellate Authority

and the lack of application of mind in relation to

the nature of information sought. The materials

on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach

of the second and third respondent in releasing

the information sought. However, declined to

issue a direction to the Central Information

Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of

the Act as the Petitioner has not been able to

demonstrate that they malafidely denied the

information sought.

8. Natural Justice - Section 20(1) of RTI Act does not envisage a post decisional show-cause-notice.


No. 5204/2008, Decided on 02-07-2009- Dr.

(Mrs) Sarla Rajput, Petitioner Vs. Central

I n f o r m a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n e r & O r s

Respondents. CORAM: Hon'ble : J. Sanjeev

Khanna

1. In this case respondent No. 4 had filed an

application under Right To Information Act 2005

and at that time the petitioner was the Public

Information Officer who processed the

application and furnished reply. Not satisfied,

the respondent No. 4 preferred first appeal and

then approached the Central Information

Commission by way of second Appeal. The CIC th

by order dated 15 December 2007 allowed the

second appeal making observations against the

stand taken by the National Council for

Educational Research and Training (NCERT for

short). By the same order the CIC also imposed a

penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner under

section 20(1) of the RTI Act..

2. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed the

present writ petition contending inter alia that

she was not given reasonable opportunity of

being heard before imposing penalty on her.

3. After hearing both sides the High Court

observed that proviso to Section 20(1) requires

and mandates reasonable opportunity of being

heard before a public information officer is

burdened with penalty. Further penalty under

section 20(1) can be imposed when conditions

mentioned therein are satisfied. Penalty is not

automatic or mandatory when an appeal is

a l lowed by the Cent ra l In format ion

Commissioner. The petitioner had retired from

service and did not have any information about

pendency of the appeal before the CIC. There is

clear violation of provisos to Section 20(1) and,

therefore, order of penalty cannot be sustained. It

was urged on behalf of CIC that the order as

regards recovery of penalty from the pension was

pass pertaining to the application for review. thAfter order dated 15 December 2007 was passed

a show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioner

on 15-01-2008. In this regard the High Court

observed that the RTI Act under section 20(1)



10

13. Awarding Compensation

High Court of Delhi at New-Delhi -

WP(C) No. 6661 of 2008, Decided on 16-04-

2009, Union of India, Petitioner. Vs. Central


Respondent CORAM: Hon. J. S. Ravindra

Bhat

1. In this petition the Union of India was

aggrieved by an order of the Central Information

Commission whereby it directed payment of Rs.

5000/- as compensation to the second respondent,

who had applied for information under the RTI

Act.( For short the Act). The brief facts were that

the second respondent applied to the Passport

Officer for disclosure of information relating to a

passport application made by him and his wife.

The CPIO informed him that the delay was for

want of fresh passport application along with

attested copies of relevant documents. Feeling

aggrieved Second respondent preferred appeal

which was disposed of with the observation that

even though no time limit for disposal of passport

application existed, broadly a 30 days' limit had to

be adhered to . Not satisfied with this order the

second respondent appealed to the CIC. After

considering the factual position the CIC awarded

a compensation of Rs. 5000/- to second

respondent in view of mental agony that has gone

through over about 1 ½ years without any fault of

his. It is against this order the Union of India

preferred the present writ petition.

2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of

provisions under the Act, the High Court held that

jurisdiction to direct compensation under the Act

has to be understood as arising in relation to

1. In this case the Central Information

Commission had imposed penalty under section

20 of the RTI Act ( for short the Act) to the extent

of Rs. 26,000/- on the petitioners coupled with

direction to initiate the departmental proceedings

against them. This order was challenged by the

petitioner in the writ petition. It was not disputed

by the petitioners that information sought was not

furnished at all till the proceedings were initiated

by the CIC. This fact is recorded by CIC in the

final order. Considering the circumstances the

High Court was satisfied that the order of CIC

was not vulnerable to challenge on the ground of

illegality relating to imposition of fines.

However, with regard to the order of holding

departmental proceedings against the petitioners,

the High Court observed that the CIC was

anguished by the manner in which the

information request was handled and

recommended the action impugned. While in the

facts of this case, the circumstances may

highlight, adversely the conduct or omission of

one or other officer, quasi judicial tribunals such

as the CIC while exercising their powers are

circumscribed by the express provisions of the

Act. In the facts of this case, none of the

provisions of the Act should have been invoked

by the CIC to make directions of the kind as made

or recommended in the detailed manner as is

found in the impugned part of the order.

Therefore, the impugned order and consequent

direction cannot be sustained. Holding this, the

High Court passed an order that the writ petition

has to succeed in part. The CIC's requirement that

the LIC should consider the matter and initiate

appropriate proceedings is set aside. The rest of

the order shall remain undisturbed.The writ

petition was partly allowed in the above terms.



13

inspection of the concerned records with the

assistance of the counsel or some one conversant

in English.

2. There was no dispute that the petitioner's

request for inspection of the files was granted.

However, his request that he should be allowed to

inspect the record with the assistance of his

counsel or with the person conversant in English

was not considered. After hearing both sides, the

High Court held that the object of the RTI Act is to

provide access to information in the custody of

the executive agency. Undoubtedly the PIO was

of the opinion that the records of which

inspection has been sought, were not of the kind

which could be granted access to. If the

petitioner for some reasons fail inhibited due to

his not being fluent English, denial of appropriate

assistance in fact would have resulted in

withholding access to information. That is not

the object of the Act or even the order. In the

circumstances, the respondents should grant the

petitioner's request. Holding this the High Court

directed the respondents to permit inspection of

the concerned records by the petitioner, who can

be accompanied by his counsel or an authorised

representative.

11. Record not in existence

High Court of Delhi at New-Delhi - LPA No.

14/2008, Decided on 11-01-2009, Manohar

Singh, Petitioner Vs N.T.P.C. and another,

Respondents CORAM: Hon. C. J .

Mukumdakam Sharma, Ms. Aruna Sharma

1. In this case the petitioner had sought for the

documents on the basis of which the order was

passed by the Chairman and Managing Director

of N.T.P.C. Since no documents were on record,

the request of petitioner for furnishing copies was

not considered. However, the CIC while passing

an order in appeal directed the CPIO to make one

more effort to find out whether any record of the

noting or decision is available and intimate the

result of the same to the petitioner. Since no

communication was made to the petitioner, he

preferred writ petition before the Single Judge.

The learned Single Judge held that when no

document is available, there is no question of

supplying such document. There could be no

direction for furnishing of any such information.

Aggrieved by this order of Single Judge the

petitioner preferred appeal before the Division

Bench. After hearing both sides, the Division

Bench observed that there was no error in the

judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

The information Commissioner had himself

stated that if the decision of C.M.D. is conveyed,

there could be some noting or decision given by

him in writing and, therefore, if any such record is

available, the same could and should be supplied

to the appellant. However, there was also a

finding in the said order of the Information

Commissioner to the effect that if no records are

available, there would be no question of

furnishing any copy of the same and, therefore,

there might not be directions to furnish the record

if the same is not in existence. Holding this the

High Court dismissed the appeal.

12. CIC cannot go beyond RTI Act provisions

High Court of Delhi at New-Delhi - WP(C)

No. 8708 of 2008, Decided on 27-04-2009, LIC

of India, Petitioner Vs. CIC & Ors,

Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble J. Ravindra

Bhat



12

13. Awarding Compensation

High Court of Delhi at New-Delhi -

WP(C) No. 6661 of 2008, Decided on 16-04-

2009, Union of India, Petitioner. Vs. Central


Respondent CORAM: Hon. J. S. Ravindra

Bhat

1. In this petition the Union of India was

aggrieved by an order of the Central Information

Commission whereby it directed payment of Rs.

5000/- as compensation to the second respondent,

who had applied for information under the RTI

Act.( For short the Act). The brief facts were that

the second respondent applied to the Passport

Officer for disclosure of information relating to a

passport application made by him and his wife.

The CPIO informed him that the delay was for

want of fresh passport application along with

attested copies of relevant documents. Feeling

aggrieved Second respondent preferred appeal

which was disposed of with the observation that

even though no time limit for disposal of passport

application existed, broadly a 30 days' limit had to

be adhered to . Not satisfied with this order the

second respondent appealed to the CIC. After

considering the factual position the CIC awarded

a compensation of Rs. 5000/- to second

respondent in view of mental agony that has gone

through over about 1 ½ years without any fault of

his. It is against this order the Union of India

preferred the present writ petition.


provisions under the Act, the High Court held that

jurisdiction to direct compensation under the Act

has to be understood as arising in relation to

1. In this case the Central Information

Commission had imposed penalty under section

20 of the RTI Act ( for short the Act) to the extent

of Rs. 26,000/- on the petitioners coupled with

direction to initiate the departmental proceedings

against them. This order was challenged by the

petitioner in the writ petition. It was not disputed

by the petitioners that information sought was not

furnished at all till the proceedings were initiated

by the CIC. This fact is recorded by CIC in the

final order. Considering the circumstances the

High Court was satisfied that the order of CIC

was not vulnerable to challenge on the ground of

illegality relating to imposition of fines.

However, with regard to the order of holding

departmental proceedings against the petitioners,

the High Court observed that the CIC was

anguished by the manner in which the

information request was handled and

recommended the action impugned. While in the

facts of this case, the circumstances may

highlight, adversely the conduct or omission of

one or other officer, quasi judicial tribunals such

as the CIC while exercising their powers are

circumscribed by the express provisions of the

Act. In the facts of this case, none of the

provisions of the Act should have been invoked

by the CIC to make directions of the kind as made

or recommended in the detailed manner as is

found in the impugned part of the order.

Therefore, the impugned order and consequent

direction cannot be sustained. Holding this, the

High Court passed an order that the writ petition

has to succeed in part. The CIC's requirement that

the LIC should consider the matter and initiate

appropriate proceedings is set aside. The rest of

the order shall remain undisturbed.The writ

petition was partly allowed in the above terms.



13

inspection of the concerned records with the

assistance of the counsel or some one conversant

in English.

2. There was no dispute that the petitioner's

request for inspection of the files was granted.

However, his request that he should be allowed to

inspect the record with the assistance of his

counsel or with the person conversant in English

was not considered. After hearing both sides, the

High Court held that the object of the RTI Act is to

provide access to information in the custody of

the executive agency. Undoubtedly the PIO was

of the opinion that the records of which

inspection has been sought, were not of the kind

which could be granted access to. If the

petitioner for some reasons fail inhibited due to

his not being fluent English, denial of appropriate

assistance in fact would have resulted in

withholding access to information. That is not

the object of the Act or even the order. In the

circumstances, the respondents should grant the

petitioner's request. Holding this the High Court

directed the respondents to permit inspection of

the concerned records by the petitioner, who can

be accompanied by his counsel or an authorised

representative.

11. Record not in existence

High Court of Delhi at New-Delhi - LPA No.

14/2008, Decided on 11-01-2009, Manohar

Singh, Petitioner Vs N.T.P.C. and another,

Respondents CORAM: Hon. C. J .

Mukumdakam Sharma, Ms. Aruna Sharma

1. In this case the petitioner had sought for the

documents on the basis of which the order was

passed by the Chairman and Managing Director

of N.T.P.C. Since no documents were on record,

the request of petitioner for furnishing copies was

not considered. However, the CIC while passing

an order in appeal directed the CPIO to make one

more effort to find out whether any record of the

noting or decision is available and intimate the

result of the same to the petitioner. Since no

communication was made to the petitioner, he

preferred writ petition before the Single Judge.

The learned Single Judge held that when no

document is available, there is no question of

supplying such document. There could be no

direction for furnishing of any such information.

Aggrieved by this order of Single Judge the

petitioner preferred appeal before the Division

Bench. After hearing both sides, the Division

Bench observed that there was no error in the

judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

The information Commissioner had himself

stated that if the decision of C.M.D. is conveyed,

there could be some noting or decision given by

him in writing and, therefore, if any such record is

available, the same could and should be supplied

to the appellant. However, there was also a

finding in the said order of the Information

Commissioner to the effect that if no records are

available, there would be no question of

furnishing any copy of the same and, therefore,

there might not be directions to furnish the record

if the same is not in existence. Holding this the

High Court dismissed the appeal.

12. CIC cannot go beyond RTI Act provisions

High Court of Delhi at New-Delhi - WP(C)

No. 8708 of 2008, Decided on 27-04-2009, LIC

of India, Petitioner Vs. CIC & Ors,

Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble J. Ravindra

Bhat



12

solution keys in respect of individual subject

disclosed, we fail to understand how if such

information is deciphered in relation to the

examination that has already been conducted,

somehow it would enable the manipulation of the

results of a preliminary examination to be held in

future. The High Court, therefore, did not find any

merit in the appeal and affirmed the impugned

order passed by the learned Single Judge. The

appeal and application were dismissed

accordingly.

15. CIC cannot just close a case without a reasoned order.

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi-

7474/2007, Decided on 10-10-2007 - Jai Kant

Gupta - Petitioner- Vs. The Central

Information Commissioner and others

Respondents, CORAM: Hon. J. Mr. Ravindra

Bhat

1. In this case the petitioner sought for

information about the transfer policy of the

NPCC through an application under Right to

Information Act ( For short 'the Act'). He did not

receive any response and, therefore, filed an

appal to the authority designated by the NPCC.

The third respondent, appellate authority directed

designated CPIO, the respondent No. 2 to provide

information within 3 days. In the meanwhile the

petitioner filed second appeal to the Central

Information Commission. The CIC directed the

respondent Nos. 2 and 3, authorities under the

NPCC to file comments and appear in person

before it. The CIC by its order noted that there

was serious delay by CPIO as well as the

appellate authority in providing information

within statutory time limit and, therefore, issued

notice to third respondent asking it to show-cause

why compensation should not be awarded.

Notice was also issued to second respondent

CPIO as to why penalty should not be imposed.

The petitioner did not thereafter hear anything

about the matter and reminded the CIC about the

follow up action. Since no response was

forthcoming the petitioner discovered that the

matter was closed through an order proposed by

the additional secretary and registrar to the CIC.

He, therefore, preferred the writ petition for not

receiving any response from both the appellate

authorities.

2. After going through the papers the Hon'ble

Judge of the High Court observed that the

procedure adopted by the CIC is curious to say the

least. Having issued the show cause notice, even

if it were to decide to drop further proceedings

and not direct compensation or penalty it ought to

have done so formally and not merely closed the

file, as it appears to have done, on the basis of

some notings. It is a quasi-judicial body,

empowered to decide issues entrusted to it by law.

Closure of such proceedings in a transparent

manner would, having regard to the objectives of

the Right to Information Act, be fundamental to

the functioning of the CIC. In these

circumstances, the CIC is hereby directed to take

up the proceeding from the stage which it dropped

them i.e. the service of the show cause notice

under section 20(1) read with 19(8)(b) and after

hearing the parties make the reasoned order in the

circumstances of the case. With these directions

the writ petition was disposed off.



15

culpability of organizations inability to respond

suitably, in time or otherwise, to the information

applicant. This is necessarily so, because penalty

is imposed on the individual responsible for

delayed response, or withholding of information

without reasonable cause. To that extent the

claim of Union of India about lack of jurisdiction

of CIC in this case is justified.

3. However, it was also observed that it is well

settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is

both discretionary and equitable. The existence of

technical question and error of a jurisdiction need

not persuade the Court to exercise such

jurisdiction unless it is satisfied that the ends of

justice require it to do so. By filing present

petition, the Union of India has not only disclosed

utter insensitivity to its duty as an authority under

the Passport Act but also aggravated the agony to

a citizen who sought for a passport and was kept

completely in the dark. In these circumstances,

even while allowing the writ petition to the extent

that award of compensation of Rs. 5000 is set

aside, the Union of India is hereby directed to pay

cost to the second respondent to the extent of Rs.

55000/-. The same shall be paid within 4 weeks.

With these directions the writ petition was

disposed off.

14. Section 8(1)(d) UPSC to declare cut off marks

High Court of Delhi at New-Delhi - LPA

No. 313 of 2007 and CM Appl. No. 6468/2007,

Decided on 03-09-2008 Union Public Service

Commission-- Appellant Vs. Shiv Shambhu

and others Respondents. CORAM : Hon. C.J.

Dr. S. Murlidhar

1. In this case the respondent made an application

to the UPSC seeking information relating to cut

off marks list for optional subjects and general

studies and also details of the marks obtained by

the candidates in the preliminary examination.

The CPIO of the UPSC declined to provide the

information sought on the ground that the said

information forms part of the commissions

crucial secretes and intellectual property under

section 8(1)(d) of the R.T.I.Act.

2. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner

preferred appeal which was rejected on the same

ground of secrecy and confidentiality of the Civil

Services Examination. Feeling aggrieved by this

order the petitioner preferred writ petition before

the Single Judge of the High Court. After

considering the merits of the arguments of rival

parties, the Single Judge declined to interfere

with the directions given by CIC except the

direction relating to the cut off marks. Those

directions were modified. Not satisfied with the

order of the Single Judge, the petitioner preferred

an appeal before the Division Bench. After

hearing both sides, the Division Bench observed

that a perusal of the documents submitted by the

UPSC, are not of such a nature that can be

characterized as secret , or of a type the disclosure

of which would not be in public interest. As

regards scaling methodology as already been

pointed out by the learned Single Judge, this is no

different from what already stand disclosed by

the UPSC to the Supreme Court in its counter

affidavit filed in SLP and is therefore in the public

domain. As regards the apprehension expressed

by the UPSC that the scaling formulation could

be deciphered first once the cut off marks and



14

solution keys in respect of individual subject

disclosed, we fail to understand how if such

information is deciphered in relation to the

examination that has already been conducted,

somehow it would enable the manipulation of the

results of a preliminary examination to be held in

future. The High Court, therefore, did not find any

merit in the appeal and affirmed the impugned

order passed by the learned Single Judge. The

appeal and application were dismissed

accordingly.

15. CIC cannot just close a case without a reasoned order.

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi-

7474/2007, Decided on 10-10-2007 - Jai Kant

Gupta - Petitioner- Vs. The Central

Information Commissioner and others

Respondents, CORAM: Hon. J. Mr. Ravindra

Bhat

1. In this case the petitioner sought for

information about the transfer policy of the

NPCC through an application under Right to

Information Act ( For short 'the Act'). He did not

receive any response and, therefore, filed an

appal to the authority designated by the NPCC.

The third respondent, appellate authority directed

designated CPIO, the respondent No. 2 to provide

information within 3 days. In the meanwhile the

petitioner filed second appeal to the Central

Information Commission. The CIC directed the

respondent Nos. 2 and 3, authorities under the

NPCC to file comments and appear in person

before it. The CIC by its order noted that there

was serious delay by CPIO as well as the

appellate authority in providing information

within statutory time limit and, therefore, issued

notice to third respondent asking it to show-cause

why compensation should not be awarded.

Notice was also issued to second respondent

CPIO as to why penalty should not be imposed.

The petitioner did not thereafter hear anything

about the matter and reminded the CIC about the

follow up action. Since no response was

forthcoming the petitioner discovered that the

matter was closed through an order proposed by

the additional secretary and registrar to the CIC.

He, therefore, preferred the writ petition for not

receiving any response from both the appellate

authorities.

2. After going through the papers the Hon'ble

Judge of the High Court observed that the

procedure adopted by the CIC is curious to say the

least. Having issued the show cause notice, even

if it were to decide to drop further proceedings

and not direct compensation or penalty it ought to

have done so formally and not merely closed the

file, as it appears to have done, on the basis of

some notings. It is a quasi-judicial body,

empowered to decide issues entrusted to it by law.

Closure of such proceedings in a transparent

manner would, having regard to the objectives of

the Right to Information Act, be fundamental to

the functioning of the CIC. In these

circumstances, the CIC is hereby directed to take

up the proceeding from the stage which it dropped

them i.e. the service of the show cause notice

under section 20(1) read with 19(8)(b) and after

hearing the parties make the reasoned order in the

circumstances of the case. With these directions

the writ petition was disposed off.



15

culpability of organizations inability to respond

suitably, in time or otherwise, to the information

applicant. This is necessarily so, because penalty

is imposed on the individual responsible for

delayed response, or withholding of information

without reasonable cause. To that extent the

claim of Union of India about lack of jurisdiction

of CIC in this case is justified.

3. However, it was also observed that it is well

settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is

both discretionary and equitable. The existence of

technical question and error of a jurisdiction need

not persuade the Court to exercise such

jurisdiction unless it is satisfied that the ends of

justice require it to do so. By filing present

petition, the Union of India has not only disclosed

utter insensitivity to its duty as an authority under

the Passport Act but also aggravated the agony to

a citizen who sought for a passport and was kept

completely in the dark. In these circumstances,

even while allowing the writ petition to the extent

that award of compensation of Rs. 5000 is set

aside, the Union of India is hereby directed to pay

cost to the second respondent to the extent of Rs.

55000/-. The same shall be paid within 4 weeks.

With these directions the writ petition was

disposed off.

14. Section 8(1)(d) UPSC to declare cut off marks

High Court of Delhi at New-Delhi - LPA

No. 313 of 2007 and CM Appl. No. 6468/2007,

Decided on 03-09-2008 Union Public Service

Commission-- Appellant Vs. Shiv Shambhu

and others Respondents. CORAM : Hon. C.J.

Dr. S. Murlidhar

1. In this case the respondent made an application

to the UPSC seeking information relating to cut

off marks list for optional subjects and general

studies and also details of the marks obtained by

the candidates in the preliminary examination.

The CPIO of the UPSC declined to provide the

information sought on the ground that the said

information forms part of the commissions

crucial secretes and intellectual property under

section 8(1)(d) of the R.T.I.Act.

2. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner

preferred appeal which was rejected on the same

ground of secrecy and confidentiality of the Civil

Services Examination. Feeling aggrieved by this

order the petitioner preferred writ petition before

the Single Judge of the High Court. After

considering the merits of the arguments of rival

parties, the Single Judge declined to interfere

with the directions given by CIC except the

direction relating to the cut off marks. Those

directions were modified. Not satisfied with the

order of the Single Judge, the petitioner preferred

an appeal before the Division Bench. After

hearing both sides, the Division Bench observed

that a perusal of the documents submitted by the

UPSC, are not of such a nature that can be

characterized as secret , or of a type the disclosure

of which would not be in public interest. As

regards scaling methodology as already been

pointed out by the learned Single Judge, this is no

different from what already stand disclosed by

the UPSC to the Supreme Court in its counter

affidavit filed in SLP and is therefore in the public

domain. As regards the apprehension expressed

by the UPSC that the scaling formulation could

be deciphered first once the cut off marks and



14

17. Evaluated Answer Sheets

High Court of Delhi at New-Delhi-

W.P.(C) No. 8529/2009 - Decided on 30-04-

2009- the Institute of Chartered Accountants

of India. Petitioner. Vs. Central Information

Commission and another. Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

1. The petitioners claimed to be aggrieved by the

order of the Central Information Commission to

the extent that the Commission directed

disclosure of applicant complainant's answer

sheet to the information applicant. The applicant

had elicited various kind of information including

a copy of the answer sheet of the examination

attempted by him. The learned ASG had

contended that the issue was already covered by

the decision of the Supreme Court in the case,

President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa

and another vs. D. Suvankar and another,

2007(1)S.C.C. 603 It was requested that the

matter may be decided on the basis of that

decision. On perusal of entire record and relevant

provisions the High Court held that since the

Supreme Court held that there is no right to claim

disclosure of answer sheets or copies, and the

same is not part of the right to freedom of

expression and, therefore, implicitly excluded

from the RTI Act, the contention too cannot be

accepted. The mere fact that the statement of

objects of, or the long title to the RTI Act mentions

that it is a practical regime of the right to

information for citizens, would not mean that a

cribbed interpretation has to be placed on its

provision on the same notion of implicit

exclusion of that which would legitimately fall

within Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. After

elaborating those aspects the High Court

dismissed the writ petition. However, it was left

upon the petitioner to work out regime where

inspection can be afforded to the respondent /

applicant, if such a proposal is acceptable to him.

18. Delay in providing information

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh - C.W.P. No. 6558 / 2007, Dated :

28-03- 2008, Rajan Sachdev, Petitioner Vs.

State Information Commission, Punjab and

another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon. J. M.

M. Kumar, Mrs. Sabina.

In this case the petitioner was an advocate and

working as Notary Public. He applied to the

Public Information Officer for supply of certified

copies of various documents. The chief

Information Officer passed an order holding that

since the information has been delivered to the

petitioner and delay was not deliberate or wilful,

no penalty could be imposed on respondents viz.

Public Information Officer. It is against this order

the petitioner filed writ petition. After hearing

both sides, the High Court held that there is no

merit in the writ petition. According to Section

20 of the RTI Act, there could be numerous

situations when penalty could be imposed which

includes refusal to receive the application for

information without any reasonable cause or

failure to furnish information within the time

specified in Sub Sec.(1) of Sec. 7 of the RTI Act.

It is pertinent to mention that a period of 30 days

itself has been provided by Sub Sec. (1) of Section

7 of the Act but delay beyond 30 days has to be

without any reasonable cause. If the delay to

supply the information is mala fide or it amounts

to giving incorrect , incomplete or misleading

information then also penalty could be imposed

at Rs. 250/- per day. Taking into account



17

16. Order denying imposing penalty cannot be upheld

High Court of Delhi, at New-Delhi -

W.P.(C)No. 3845/2007 - Decided on 28-04-

2009- Mujibur Rehman-- Petitioner. Vs.

Central Information Commission Respondent

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. J. Ravindra Bhat

1. The petitioner in this case made grievance

against the order passed by the Central

Information Commission by which it dropped

penalty proceedings under section 20 of the RTI

Act, 2005. Brief facts are:-

2. That the petitioner sought information in

respect of service rules for which he did not

receive response and, therefore, he preferred an

appeal which was of no avail. He, therefore,

approached the CIC by way of second appeal.

The CIC allowed the second appeal. But

restrained from imposing penalty under section

20 of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with this decision,

the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

Admittedly the petitioner had applied for

information and he was made to wait and forced

to file appeals to first appellate authority and later

to CIC. The internal processes within the third

respondent corporation, apparently were

insensitive to the queries elicited and eventually

after the CIC issued a notice, did the third

respondent furnish the information it was in this

circumstances that CIC issued notice to the PIO

calling upon him why penal action should not be

taken. That delay occurred beyond the stipulated

period in furnishing information was self-

evident. Both the orders passed by CIC recorded

that there was delay. The only question, therefore,

was whether after issuing notice and hearing the th

concerned PIO the 6 respondent, the CIC acted

within its jurisdiction in not imposing the penalty

of Rs. 25,000/-. After considering the arguments

advanced and on perusal of record, the High

Court observed that the petitioner was sought to

be proceeded against departmentally for the sin of

approaching the PIO under the RTI Act, a right

and guarantee to him in law. In such cases, it is

cold comfort for a litigant, such as the petitioner

who was driven to seek information, to approach

the CIC at Delhi, to be told that the erring official

would be proceeded with departmentally

especially after recording that the lapse i.e. the

delay or even the unreasonableness of

withholding of information was unjustified. The

petitioner in effect was doubly deprived, in the

first instance, of the information which was

sought for, and secondly, he was exposed to an

unjustified threat of enquiry. In these

c i rcumstances even though the CIC

recommended disciplinary action under section

20 (2) its denial of any penalty order under

section 20 in the considered opinion of this Court

cannot be upheld.

3. Holding above that the High Court declined the

order not imposing penalty as illegal and imposed

the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- with direction that the

third respondent shall deduct the same from the th

6 respondent's salary with the equal instalments

and deposit the amount with the Commission.

The costs of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed with

the third respondent.



16

17. Evaluated Answer Sheets

High Court of Delhi at New-Delhi-

W.P.(C) No. 8529/2009 - Decided on 30-04-

2009- the Institute of Chartered Accountants

of India. Petitioner. Vs. Central Information

Commission and another. Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat

1. The petitioners claimed to be aggrieved by the

order of the Central Information Commission to

the extent that the Commission directed

disclosure of applicant complainant's answer

sheet to the information applicant. The applicant

had elicited various kind of information including

a copy of the answer sheet of the examination

attempted by him. The learned ASG had

contended that the issue was already covered by

the decision of the Supreme Court in the case,

President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa

and another vs. D. Suvankar and another,

2007(1)S.C.C. 603 It was requested that the

matter may be decided on the basis of that

decision. On perusal of entire record and relevant

provisions the High Court held that since the

Supreme Court held that there is no right to claim

disclosure of answer sheets or copies, and the

same is not part of the right to freedom of

expression and, therefore, implicitly excluded

from the RTI Act, the contention too cannot be

accepted. The mere fact that the statement of

objects of, or the long title to the RTI Act mentions

that it is a practical regime of the right to

information for citizens, would not mean that a

cribbed interpretation has to be placed on its

provision on the same notion of implicit










Chandigarh - C.W.P. No. 6558 / 2007, Dated :

28-03- 2008, Rajan Sachdev, Petitioner Vs.


another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon. J. M.

M. Kumar, Mrs. Sabina.

In this case the petitioner was an advocate and

working as Notary Public. He applied to the

Public Information Officer for supply of certified

copies of various documents. The chief

Information Officer passed an order holding that

since the information has been delivered to the

petitioner and delay was not deliberate or wilful,

no penalty could be imposed on respondents viz.

Public Information Officer. It is against this order

the petitioner filed writ petition. After hearing

both sides, the High Court held that there is no

merit in the writ petition. According to Section

20 of the RTI Act, there could be numerous

situations when penalty could be imposed which

includes refusal to receive the application for

information without any reasonable cause or

failure to furnish information within the time

specified in Sub Sec.(1) of Sec. 7 of the RTI Act.

It is pertinent to mention that a period of 30 days

itself has been provided by Sub Sec. (1) of Section

7 of the Act but delay beyond 30 days has to be

without any reasonable cause. If the delay to

supply the information is mala fide or it amounts

to giving incorrect , incomplete or misleading

information then also penalty could be imposed

at Rs. 250/- per day. Taking into account



17

16. Order denying imposing penalty cannot be upheld

High Court of Delhi, at New-Delhi -

W.P.(C)No. 3845/2007 - Decided on 28-04-

2009- Mujibur Rehman-- Petitioner. Vs.

Central Information Commission Respondent

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. J. Ravindra Bhat

1. The petitioner in this case made grievance

against the order passed by the Central

Information Commission by which it dropped

penalty proceedings under section 20 of the RTI

Act, 2005. Brief facts are:-

2. That the petitioner sought information in

respect of service rules for which he did not

receive response and, therefore, he preferred an

appeal which was of no avail. He, therefore,

approached the CIC by way of second appeal.

The CIC allowed the second appeal. But

restrained from imposing penalty under section

20 of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with this decision,

the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

Admittedly the petitioner had applied for

information and he was made to wait and forced

to file appeals to first appellate authority and later

to CIC. The internal processes within the third

respondent corporation, apparently were

insensitive to the queries elicited and eventually

after the CIC issued a notice, did the third

respondent furnish the information it was in this

circumstances that CIC issued notice to the PIO

calling upon him why penal action should not be

taken. That delay occurred beyond the stipulated

period in furnishing information was self-

evident. Both the orders passed by CIC recorded

that there was delay. The only question, therefore,

was whether after issuing notice and hearing the th

concerned PIO the 6 respondent, the CIC acted

within its jurisdiction in not imposing the penalty

of Rs. 25,000/-. After considering the arguments

advanced and on perusal of record, the High

Court observed that the petitioner was sought to

be proceeded against departmentally for the sin of

approaching the PIO under the RTI Act, a right

and guarantee to him in law. In such cases, it is

cold comfort for a litigant, such as the petitioner

who was driven to seek information, to approach

the CIC at Delhi, to be told that the erring official

would be proceeded with departmentally

especially after recording that the lapse i.e. the

delay or even the unreasonableness of

withholding of information was unjustified. The

petitioner in effect was doubly deprived, in the

first instance, of the information which was

sought for, and secondly, he was exposed to an

unjustified threat of enquiry. In these

c i rcumstances even though the CIC

recommended disciplinary action under section

20 (2) its denial of any penalty order under

section 20 in the considered opinion of this Court

cannot be upheld.

3. Holding above that the High Court declined the

order not imposing penalty as illegal and imposed

the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- with direction that the

third respondent shall deduct the same from the th

6 respondent's salary with the equal instalments

and deposit the amount with the Commission.

The costs of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed with

the third respondent.



16

impugned order. The copy of the order was

directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary for

recovering the amount of fine from the salary of

the petitioner. It is against this order the petitioner

filed writ petition. After hearing both sides and

on perusal of record, the High Court held that the

State Information Commission was not justified

in passing the order since there is nothing on

record to show that at any time the petitioner was

served with a notice to appear before the

Commission and explained his position. He was

transferred from Jalandhar and thereafter

remained on leave. It was also observed that the

Commission had taken serious note of the

complaint sent by the petitioner against

respondent No.2, to his superiors. If in a good

faith the petitioner may have sent a letter to

supervising authority of respondent No. 2, the

State Information Commission was not expected

to take a very serious note of that fact, as has been

done in this case. Holding this the petitioner was

directed to appear before the State Information

Commission which has passed the order under

challenge. The writ petition was disposed off

accordingly.

21. Penalty


Chandigarh - C.W.P. No. 3494 of 2007, Dated :

11-02-2008, Rajbala, PetitionerVs. State of

Haryana, and others Respondents. CORAM :

Hon. J- M. M. Kumar, T. P. S. Mann.

The writ petition was filed against the order

passed by the State Information Commission

claiming that he has failed to impose penalty as

contemplated under section 20 of the Right To

Information Act despite the fact that the

respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were deficient in not

furnishing the requisite information as per the

provisions of the RTI Act. During the course of

hearing of the application by the State

Information Commission, information as sought

for by the petitioner was provided. However the

State information Commission did not impose

any penalty. The petitioner, therefore, insisted

for imposition of penalty by filing writ petition.

After hearing both sides the high Court held that

once the commission has accepted that there was

no mala fide intention and the delay was caused

only on account of lack of proper appreciation of

the provisions of the Act, then it must be

construed to be the reasonable cause within the

meaning of second proviso to Section 20(1) of the

RTI Act. According to the second proviso the

burden of proof that the officer had acted

reasonably and diligently was on the information

officer. Once the aforementioned stand has been

accepted, we do not find any legal infirmity in the

impugned order and there is no room for us to

issue directions against the respondents by

invoking penal provision of the Act. Holding this

the writ petition was dismissed.

22. Delay in Information because of Voluminous Records


Chandigarh - C.W.P. No. 10027 of 2008,

Dated: 8-4-2008, Umesh Kumar Sharda and

another, Petitioner Vs. The Punjab

Information and others, Respondents.

CORAM: J. M. M. Kumar & Mrs. Sabina.

In this case, the petitioner had sought information

from respondents 2 to 4 who were Indian Red

Cross Societies. The Punjab Information

Commission directed the respondents 2 to 4 to



19

aforementioned provision, we are of the view that

there is no room for us to conclude that the delay

was not reasonable or it was wilful or delay was

actuated by malafide intention. Holding this the

High Court dismissed the writ petition.

19. Appropriate Public Authority


Chandigarh -C.W.P. No. 19682 of 2006, Dated

: 22-01-2008, Bar Council of Punjab and

Haryana, Petitioner Vs. State Information

Commission and others, Respondents

CORAM : JJ M. M. Kumar, T. P. S. Mann.

In this case the petitioner Advocate had

demanded information concerning Group

Insurance and Benevolent Fund Scheme

mandatorily prescribed by the petitioner Bar

Council for practising advocates in Punjab,

Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. During the

pendency of matter before State Information

Commission, the Bar Council filed Writ petition

before the High Court under Art. 226 of the

Constitution. After hearing the learned counsel

for both the parties the High Court held that the

State Information Commission has no

jurisdiction to deal with the issue raised by the

petitioner after considering the relevant

provisions under the Advocates Act 1961. The

High Court further held that the State of Punjab,

Haryana or U.T. Chandigarh do not have any

control over the Bar council and, therefore,

cannot construe to be appropriate Government

within the meaning of Section l2(a) of the Right to

Information Act because both the states or U.T.

Chandigarh do not exercise any control over the

Bar council. The appropriate authority in the case

of Bar council would be the Central Government

and therefore, the Chief Information Commission

would be competent to deal with the issues raised

by the petitioner. Holding this, the High Court

set aside all the proceedings pending before the

State Information Commission.

20. Penalty


Chandigarh - W.P. No. 1785 of 2008, Dated :

28-07- 2009, S.S. Johal, Petitioner Vs. State

Information Commission, Punjab and others,

Respondents. CORAM : Hon. J. Jasbir

Singh.

In this the grievance of the petitioner was against

the order by which an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was

imposed upon him by way of penalty for not

complying with the directions issued by the State

Information Commission. The Petitioner was

working as Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation. Respondent No.2. moved an

application under RTI Act for getting some

information. The fee, more than the prescribed

was charged from him. He moved a complaint

before the Information Commission and

accordingly the Information Commission

directed the petitioner to appear before it and to

state reasons for overcharging and other

grievances. In spite of several opportunities the

petitioner did not appear and, therefore, the State

Commission took serious view and imposed a

fine on him at the rate of Rs 250/- per day vide



18

impugned order. The copy of the order was

directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary for

recovering the amount of fine from the salary of

the petitioner. It is against this order the petitioner

filed writ petition. After hearing both sides and

on perusal of record, the High Court held that the

State Information Commission was not justified

in passing the order since there is nothing on

record to show that at any time the petitioner was

served with a notice to appear before the

Commission and explained his position. He was

transferred from Jalandhar and thereafter

remained on leave. It was also observed that the

Commission had taken serious note of the

complaint sent by the petitioner against

respondent No.2, to his superiors. If in a good

faith the petitioner may have sent a letter to

supervising authority of respondent No. 2, the

State Information Commission was not expected

to take a very serious note of that fact, as has been

done in this case. Holding this the petitioner was

directed to appear before the State Information

Commission which has passed the order under

challenge. The writ petition was disposed off

accordingly.

21. Penalty


Chandigarh - C.W.P. No. 3494 of 2007, Dated :

11-02-2008, Rajbala, PetitionerVs. State of

Haryana, and others Respondents. CORAM :

Hon. J- M. M. Kumar, T. P. S. Mann.

The writ petition was filed against the order

passed by the State Information Commission

claiming that he has failed to impose penalty as

contemplated under section 20 of the Right To

Information Act despite the fact that the

respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were deficient in not

furnishing the requisite information as per the

provisions of the RTI Act. During the course of

hearing of the application by the State

Information Commission, information as sought

for by the petitioner was provided. However the

State information Commission did not impose

any penalty. The petitioner, therefore, insisted

for imposition of penalty by filing writ petition.

After hearing both sides the high Court held that

once the commission has accepted that there was

no mala fide intention and the delay was caused

only on account of lack of proper appreciation of

the provisions of the Act, then it must be

construed to be the reasonable cause within the

meaning of second proviso to Section 20(1) of the

RTI Act. According to the second proviso the

burden of proof that the officer had acted

reasonably and diligently was on the information

officer. Once the aforementioned stand has been

accepted, we do not find any legal infirmity in the

impugned order and there is no room for us to

issue directions against the respondents by

invoking penal provision of the Act. Holding this

the writ petition was dismissed.

22. Delay in Information because of Voluminous Records



Dated: 8-4-2008, Umesh Kumar Sharda and

another, Petitioner Vs. The Punjab

Information and others, Respondents.

CORAM: J. M. M. Kumar & Mrs. Sabina.

In this case, the petitioner had sought information

from respondents 2 to 4 who were Indian Red

Cross Societies. The Punjab Information

Commission directed the respondents 2 to 4 to



19

aforementioned provision, we are of the view that

there is no room for us to conclude that the delay

was not reasonable or it was wilful or delay was

actuated by malafide intention. Holding this the


19. Appropriate Public Authority


Chandigarh -C.W.P. No. 19682 of 2006, Dated

: 22-01-2008, Bar Council of Punjab and

Haryana, Petitioner Vs. State Information

Commission and others, Respondents

CORAM : JJ M. M. Kumar, T. P. S. Mann.

In this case the petitioner Advocate had

demanded information concerning Group



Council for practising advocates in Punjab,

Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. During the

pendency of matter before State Information

Commission, the Bar Council filed Writ petition

before the High Court under Art. 226 of the

Constitution. After hearing the learned counsel

for both the parties the High Court held that the

State Information Commission has no

jurisdiction to deal with the issue raised by the

petitioner after considering the relevant

provisions under the Advocates Act 1961. The

High Court further held that the State of Punjab,

Haryana or U.T. Chandigarh do not have any

control over the Bar council and, therefore,

cannot construe to be appropriate Government

within the meaning of Section l2(a) of the Right to

Information Act because both the states or U.T.


Bar council. The appropriate authority in the case

of Bar council would be the Central Government

and therefore, the Chief Information Commission

would be competent to deal with the issues raised

by the petitioner. Holding this, the High Court

set aside all the proceedings pending before the

State Information Commission.

20. Penalty


Chandigarh - W.P. No. 1785 of 2008, Dated :

28-07- 2009, S.S. Johal, Petitioner Vs. State

Information Commission, Punjab and others,

Respondents. CORAM : Hon. J. Jasbir

Singh.

In this the grievance of the petitioner was against

the order by which an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was

imposed upon him by way of penalty for not

complying with the directions issued by the State

Information Commission. The Petitioner was

working as Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation. Respondent No.2. moved an

application under RTI Act for getting some

information. The fee, more than the prescribed

was charged from him. He moved a complaint

before the Information Commission and

accordingly the Information Commission

directed the petitioner to appear before it and to

state reasons for overcharging and other

grievances. In spite of several opportunities the

petitioner did not appear and, therefore, the State

Commission took serious view and imposed a

fine on him at the rate of Rs 250/- per day vide



18

declined because now all ACRs are required to be

communicated to a public servant, whether

adverse, good, very good etc. In paras 19 and 20

of the judgment rendered in the case of Dev Dutt

v. Union of India and others (Civil Appeal No.

7631 of 2002, decided on 12.5.2008), Hon'ble the

Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“ In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of

public servant must be communicated to him

within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor,

fair, average, good or very good entry. This is

because non-communication of such an entry

may adversely affect the employee in two ways:

(1) Had the entry been communicated to him he

would know about the assessment of his work and

conduct by his superiors, which would enable

him to improve his work in future (2) He would

have an opportunity of making a representation

against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and

pray for its upgradation up. Hence non-

communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has

been held by the Constitution Bench decision of

this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India

[AIR 1978 SC 597] C.W.P. No. 8396 of 2008

(supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the

Constitution. (para-19)

Thus it is not only when there is a bench mark but

in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair,

average, good or very good) must be

communicated to a public servant, otherwise

there is violation of the principle of fairness,

which is the soul of natural justice. Even an

outstanding entry should be communicated since

that would boost the morale of the employee and

make him work harder.” (para-20)

In the light of the aforesaid view of Hon'ble

Supreme Court, it has now become obligatory to

even communicate good or better reports to a

public servant or an employee of the Corporation,

Board or judiciary. Therefore, the controversy has

been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.This

petition fails and the same is dismissed.

24. File Notings and Correspondence can be disclosed


Chandigarh - W.P. (C) No. 7289/2009, Dated :

14-07-2009, State of Punjab, Petitioner Vs

State Information Officer and Others,

Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble J. Jasbir

Singh (Oral)

Respondent No.2 moved an application under the

Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, the Act),

to get copies of the documents. The requisite

information was not supplied. He went to the

State Information Commissioner, Punjab. Upon

notice, with regard to the information demanded,

the petitioner sought exemption by invoking

provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the Act. To claim

exemption, it was stated that if information is

supplied to the respondent No.2, it will affect

economic interest of the State. That argument was

rejected and the State was directed to supply the

information demanded by respondent No.2. State

Information Commission, Punjab observed as

under in its order dated 10.2.2009:-

Civil Writ Petition No.7289 of 2009 2 "A

reading of Clause (a) of Section 8(1) shows that

information that would be exempt from

disclosure under that clause would be information

likely to judicially affect the sovereignty,

integrity, security of India or its strategic,

scientific or economic interests. The information

demanded in this case i.e. notings and

correspondence in then Finance Department,

pertaining to the merger of DRDA staff in Zila

Parishads/ Line Department, is, by no stretch of



21

furnish the petitioner with the desired

information on payment of fee on account of

voluminous record. The petitioner challenged

this order contending that he is entitled to receive

information free of charges in case the

information has not been furnished within a

period of 30 days. The respondents 2 to 4 raised

preliminary objection on the ground that they

cannot be considered as Public Authority as per

the definition of that expression under RTI Act.

The State Information Commission overruled

this objection. However, the commission directed

that the information might be furnished on

payment of required fee. Feeling aggrieved the

petitioner-preferred petition under Article 26 of

the Constitution.

After hearing both sides the High Court held

that no interference in the order passed by the

Commission would be warranted. The objection

raised by the respondents societies were sent to

the petitioner within the prescribed period of 30

days and they did not approach them. The first

date of hearing before the Commission was 26-

02-2007 and the objection raised was overruled.

There was no legal infirmity in the view taken by

the Commission that the period of 30 days would

start running U/s 7 of the Act from 26-02-2007

when the directions for furnishing information

were issued because earlier period was consumed

in deciding the preliminary objection raised by

the respondents. It was also held by the High

Court that information asked for by the petitioner

is lengthy and voluminous and payment of Rs. 2

per page is not excessive. Holding this the writ

petition was dismissed.

23. ACRs of Public Servant are not private in character


- CWP No. 8396 /2008, Dated : 19-05-2008,

State of Punjab and others, Petitioner Vs.


another, Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr.

J. N.M. Kumar, Hon'ble Mrs. J. Sabina Brief

facts of the case are that on 18.7.2006, Shri Faquir

Chand Sharma-respondent No. 2, filed an

application under the Right to Information Act,

2005 (for brevity, 'the Act'), with the Public

Information Officer-petitioner No. 3 for supply of

copies of Annual Confidential Reports for the

period from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2006. The Public

Information Officer-petitioner No. 3 referred the

matter to the Appellate Authority i.e.

Superintendent Executive Patiala Circle-I, PWD

(B&R) Branch, Patiala. After considering the

matter, the Appellate Authority vide order dated

8.8.2006 declined the request on the ground that

the information demanded by respondent No. 2 is

confidential and the same is exempted from

disclosure under Section 8 of the Act.

Second appeal was filed and the State

Information Commission, Punjab, passed an

order holding that Shri Faquir Chand Sharma-

respondent No. 2 is entitled to the information

sought by him. The Executive Engineer,

Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala-

petitioner No. 3 has been directed to deliver

copies of his ACRs for the period from 1.4.2000

to 31.3.2006 within a period of 15 days to

him.This petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India challenges order dated

5.11.2007.

The ACRs of a public servant are not private in

character. In any case, when an employee asks for

disclosure of his own ACR the demand cannot be



20

declined because now all ACRs are required to be

communicated to a public servant, whether

adverse, good, very good etc. In paras 19 and 20

of the judgment rendered in the case of Dev Dutt

v. Union of India and others (Civil Appeal No.

7631 of 2002, decided on 12.5.2008), Hon'ble the

Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“ In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of

public servant must be communicated to him

within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor,

fair, average, good or very good entry. This is

because non-communication of such an entry

may adversely affect the employee in two ways:

(1) Had the entry been communicated to him he

would know about the assessment of his work and

conduct by his superiors, which would enable

him to improve his work in future (2) He would

have an opportunity of making a representation

against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and

pray for its upgradation up. Hence non-

communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has

been held by the Constitution Bench decision of

this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India

[AIR 1978 SC 597] C.W.P. No. 8396 of 2008

(supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the

Constitution. (para-19)

Thus it is not only when there is a bench mark but

in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair,

average, good or very good) must be

communicated to a public servant, otherwise

there is violation of the principle of fairness,

which is the soul of natural justice. Even an

outstanding entry should be communicated since

that would boost the morale of the employee and

make him work harder.” (para-20)

In the light of the aforesaid view of Hon'ble

Supreme Court, it has now become obligatory to

even communicate good or better reports to a

public servant or an employee of the Corporation,

Board or judiciary. Therefore, the controversy has

been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.This

petition fails and the same is dismissed.

24. File Notings and Correspondence can be disclosed


Chandigarh - W.P. (C) No. 7289/2009, Dated :

14-07-2009, State of Punjab, Petitioner Vs

State Information Officer and Others,

Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble J. Jasbir

Singh (Oral)

Respondent No.2 moved an application under the

Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, the Act),

to get copies of the documents. The requisite

information was not supplied. He went to the

State Information Commissioner, Punjab. Upon

notice, with regard to the information demanded,

the petitioner sought exemption by invoking

provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the Act. To claim

exemption, it was stated that if information is

supplied to the respondent No.2, it will affect

economic interest of the State. That argument was

rejected and the State was directed to supply the

information demanded by respondent No.2. State

Information Commission, Punjab observed as

under in its order dated 10.2.2009:-

Civil Writ Petition No.7289 of 2009 2 "A

reading of Clause (a) of Section 8(1) shows that

information that would be exempt from

disclosure under that clause would be information

likely to judicially affect the sovereignty,

integrity, security of India or its strategic,

scientific or economic interests. The information

demanded in this case i.e. notings and

correspondence in then Finance Department,

pertaining to the merger of DRDA staff in Zila

Parishads/ Line Department, is, by no stretch of



21

furnish the petitioner with the desired

information on payment of fee on account of

voluminous record. The petitioner challenged

this order contending that he is entitled to receive

information free of charges in case the

information has not been furnished within a

period of 30 days. The respondents 2 to 4 raised

preliminary objection on the ground that they

cannot be considered as Public Authority as per

the definition of that expression under RTI Act.

The State Information Commission overruled

this objection. However, the commission directed

that the information might be furnished on

payment of required fee. Feeling aggrieved the

petitioner-preferred petition under Article 26 of

the Constitution.

After hearing both sides the High Court held


Commission would be warranted. The objection

raised by the respondents societies were sent to

the petitioner within the prescribed period of 30

days and they did not approach them. The first

date of hearing before the Commission was 26-

02-2007 and the objection raised was overruled.

There was no legal infirmity in the view taken by

the Commission that the period of 30 days would

start running U/s 7 of the Act from 26-02-2007

when the directions for furnishing information

were issued because earlier period was consumed

in deciding the preliminary objection raised by

the respondents. It was also held by the High

Court that information asked for by the petitioner

is lengthy and voluminous and payment of Rs. 2

per page is not excessive. Holding this the writ


23. ACRs of Public Servant are not private in character


- CWP No. 8396 /2008, Dated : 19-05-2008,

State of Punjab and others, Petitioner Vs.


another, Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr.

J. N.M. Kumar, Hon'ble Mrs. J. Sabina Brief

facts of the case are that on 18.7.2006, Shri Faquir

Chand Sharma-respondent No. 2, filed an

application under the Right to Information Act,

2005 (for brevity, 'the Act'), with the Public

Information Officer-petitioner No. 3 for supply of

copies of Annual Confidential Reports for the

period from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2006. The Public

Information Officer-petitioner No. 3 referred the

matter to the Appellate Authority i.e.

Superintendent Executive Patiala Circle-I, PWD

(B&R) Branch, Patiala. After considering the

matter, the Appellate Authority vide order dated

8.8.2006 declined the request on the ground that

the information demanded by respondent No. 2 is

confidential and the same is exempted from

disclosure under Section 8 of the Act.

Second appeal was filed and the State

Information Commission, Punjab, passed an

order holding that Shri Faquir Chand Sharma-

respondent No. 2 is entitled to the information

sought by him. The Executive Engineer,

Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala-

petitioner No. 3 has been directed to deliver

copies of his ACRs for the period from 1.4.2000

to 31.3.2006 within a period of 15 days to

him.This petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India challenges order dated

5.11.2007.

The ACRs of a public servant are not private in

character. In any case, when an employee asks for

disclosure of his own ACR the demand cannot be



20

that any training programme as envisaged by sub-

sections (1) (a) of Section 26 has not been

organised by the Government encouraging

participation of the petitioners in the

development and organisation of programmes.

Holding this the High Court dismissed the writ

petition holding that there are no merits in it.

26. Penal Powers of Information Commission u/s 20


Chandigarh - Writ Petition No. 14161/2009,

Decided on 10-09-2009, Shaheed Kanshi Ram

Memorial College and another, Petitioners Vs.


others, Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble J.

Jasbir Singh

This writ petition was filed with a prayer to quash

order by which penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was

imposed on the petitioners for causing

unnecessary harassment to respondent No. 3, in

supplying the information under RTI Act 2005.

The respondent No.3 had filed application under

the Act seeking some information to be supplied

by the petitioners. As per the provisions of the

Act, information was to be supplied within 30

days. However, by supplying incorrect

information, the respondent No. 3 was forced to

move a complaint before the State Information

Commission which gave a specific finding that

the Information supplied was not complete.

Taking the note of the shortcomings in the

information supplied, notice was issued to

petitioner to show-cause as to why penal action

should not be initiated under section 20 of the Act.

Admittedly this order was never challenged by

the petitioner and, therefore, it had become final.

The High Court therefore, observed that

imposition of penalty is perfectly justified as per

the provisions of the Act, public information

officer is supposed to supply correct information,

that too, in a time bound manner. Once a finding

has given that he has not acted in the manner

prescribed under the Act, imposition of penalty is

perfectly justified and no case is made out for

interference. With this the petition was dismissed.

27 . Misuse of RTI Act


Chandigarh - W.P. No. Decided on 19-11-

2007, Rajan Verma, Petitioner Vs. Union of

India (UOI), Ministry Of Finance, Banking

Divisions & Ors, Respondents. CORAM :

Hon'ble J. K.C. Puri

1. The petitioner directed this writ petition for

quashing the impugned orders passed by

respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and for directing them to

provide information to the petitioner under the

RTI Act. The facts leading to this writ petition

were that the Firm M/s S.R. Rajan & Company

had taken loan from respondent No.5 and the

petitioners stood as guarantors for the repayment

of said loan. The borrower account of M/s Rajan

and Company became NPA and the petitioner

wanted to settle the matter with the Bank. The

petitioner moved an application to the Manager

for providing information under the RTI Act with

regard to the details of compromise made by the

Bank during the last 5 years with the different

parties of NPA. No such information was

furnished by the Bank and, therefore, the

petitioner moved higher authorities by preferring



23

imagination, such information as may tend to

judicially affect sovereignty, integrity or security

of India or the strategic, scientific or economic

interests of the country. The objection taken by

the respondent to show the least far fetched and is

accordingly, rejected."

This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge

to above said order. Even in the additional

affidavit, facts have not been disclosed to show

that how financial interest of the State will suffer,

in case the demanded information is supplied to

respondent No.2. Copies of the documents,

which respondent No.2 wants to be supplied to

him, are the official notings etc. This Court feels

that in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the

Act, no exemption can be granted to the petitioner

unless it is disclosed as to how economic interest

of the State will suffer. No explanation has been

furnished in that regards. No case is made out for

interference. Dismissed.



Chandigarh - Writ Petition No. 1924/2008, th Decided on 08 February 2008, Sri Ramesh

Sharma and others, Petitioners Vs. State

information Commission,Commission,

Haryana and others, Respondents. CORAM :

Hon'ble J. M. M. Kumar, J. T.P.S. Mann

The short question involved in this case was

whether a State Information Commission could

impose penalty under section 20 (1) of the Right

To Information Act 2005. The writ petition was

directed against the order passed by the State

Information Commission, Haryana imposing a

penalty of Rs. 19,250/- by invoking the

provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for 77

days' delay in furnishing the information in

accordance with mandatory provisions of Sub

Section (1) of Section 7 of the RTI Act. The

petitioners raised 3 submissions before the High

Court. Firstly it was contended that sub-sec.(2)

of Sec. 20 would not apply unless findings are

recorded that the petitioner has been persistently

delaying to supply the information and that too

without any reasonable cause. Secondly it was

submitted that it is not that in every case of delay

penalty could be imposed by placing reliance of

sub-section (2) of Sec. 20 of the RTI Act. Thirdly

it was submitted that the commission could not

have proceeded against the petitioners without

firstly training the public authority like the

petitioners as envisaged by Section 26 of the RTI

Act. It was incumbent upon the State Government

to train the petitioner by encouraging their

participation in the development and organisation

of programmes as envisaged by Section

26(1)(a)of the RTI Act. After hearing both sides

and on perusal of provisions under section 20 of

the RTI Act, the High Court observed that a plain

reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act

makes it obvious that the commission could

impose the penalty for the simple reasons of delay

in furnishing the information within the period

specified by Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the

Act. According to Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of

the Act, a period of 30 days has been provided for

furnishing of information. If the information is

not furnished within time, public authorities

failing in furnishing the requisite information

could be penalised. It is true that in cases of

intentional delay, the same provision could be

invoked but in cases where there is simple delay

the commission has been clothed adequate

power. With regard the training the public

authorities, it was observed that the petitioners

cannot avoid the mandatory provisions of Sub-

section (1) of Section 20 of the Act on the clause



22

that any training programme as envisaged by sub-

sections (1) (a) of Section 26 has not been

organised by the Government encouraging

participation of the petitioners in the

development and organisation of programmes.


petition holding that there are no merits in it.



Chandigarh - Writ Petition No. 14161/2009,

Decided on 10-09-2009, Shaheed Kanshi Ram

Memorial College and another, Petitioners Vs.



Jasbir Singh

This writ petition was filed with a prayer to quash

order by which penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was

imposed on the petitioners for causing

unnecessary harassment to respondent No. 3, in

supplying the information under RTI Act 2005.

The respondent No.3 had filed application under

the Act seeking some information to be supplied

by the petitioners. As per the provisions of the

Act, information was to be supplied within 30

days. However, by supplying incorrect

information, the respondent No. 3 was forced to

move a complaint before the State Information

Commission which gave a specific finding that

the Information supplied was not complete.

Taking the note of the shortcomings in the

information supplied, notice was issued to

petitioner to show-cause as to why penal action

should not be initiated under section 20 of the Act.

Admittedly this order was never challenged by

the petitioner and, therefore, it had become final.

The High Court therefore, observed that

imposition of penalty is perfectly justified as per

the provisions of the Act, public information

officer is supposed to supply correct information,

that too, in a time bound manner. Once a finding

has given that he has not acted in the manner

prescribed under the Act, imposition of penalty is

perfectly justified and no case is made out for

interference. With this the petition was dismissed.

27 . Misuse of RTI Act


Chandigarh - W.P. No. Decided on 19-11-

2007, Rajan Verma, Petitioner Vs. Union of

India (UOI), Ministry Of Finance, Banking

Divisions & Ors, Respondents. CORAM :

Hon'ble J. K.C. Puri

1. The petitioner directed this writ petition for

quashing the impugned orders passed by

respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and for directing them to

provide information to the petitioner under the

RTI Act. The facts leading to this writ petition

were that the Firm M/s S.R. Rajan & Company

had taken loan from respondent No.5 and the

petitioners stood as guarantors for the repayment

of said loan. The borrower account of M/s Rajan

and Company became NPA and the petitioner

wanted to settle the matter with the Bank. The

petitioner moved an application to the Manager

for providing information under the RTI Act with

regard to the details of compromise made by the

Bank during the last 5 years with the different

parties of NPA. No such information was

furnished by the Bank and, therefore, the

petitioner moved higher authorities by preferring



23

imagination, such information as may tend to

judicially affect sovereignty, integrity or security

of India or the strategic, scientific or economic

interests of the country. The objection taken by

the respondent to show the least far fetched and is

accordingly, rejected."

This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge

to above said order. Even in the additional

affidavit, facts have not been disclosed to show

that how financial interest of the State will suffer,

in case the demanded information is supplied to

respondent No.2. Copies of the documents,

which respondent No.2 wants to be supplied to

him, are the official notings etc. This Court feels

that in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the

Act, no exemption can be granted to the petitioner

unless it is disclosed as to how economic interest

of the State will suffer. No explanation has been

furnished in that regards. No case is made out for

interference. Dismissed.



Chandigarh - Writ Petition No. 1924/2008, th Decided on 08 February 2008, Sri Ramesh

Sharma and others, Petitioners Vs. State

information Commission,Commission,

Haryana and others, Respondents. CORAM :

Hon'ble J. M. M. Kumar, J. T.P.S. Mann

The short question involved in this case was

whether a State Information Commission could

impose penalty under section 20 (1) of the Right

To Information Act 2005. The writ petition was

directed against the order passed by the State

Information Commission, Haryana imposing a

penalty of Rs. 19,250/- by invoking the

provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for 77

days' delay in furnishing the information in

accordance with mandatory provisions of Sub

Section (1) of Section 7 of the RTI Act. The

petitioners raised 3 submissions before the High

Court. Firstly it was contended that sub-sec.(2)

of Sec. 20 would not apply unless findings are

recorded that the petitioner has been persistently

delaying to supply the information and that too

without any reasonable cause. Secondly it was

submitted that it is not that in every case of delay

penalty could be imposed by placing reliance of

sub-section (2) of Sec. 20 of the RTI Act. Thirdly

it was submitted that the commission could not

have proceeded against the petitioners without

firstly training the public authority like the

petitioners as envisaged by Section 26 of the RTI

Act. It was incumbent upon the State Government

to train the petitioner by encouraging their

participation in the development and organisation

of programmes as envisaged by Section

26(1)(a)of the RTI Act. After hearing both sides

and on perusal of provisions under section 20 of

the RTI Act, the High Court observed that a plain

reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act

makes it obvious that the commission could

impose the penalty for the simple reasons of delay

in furnishing the information within the period

specified by Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the

Act. According to Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of

the Act, a period of 30 days has been provided for

furnishing of information. If the information is

not furnished within time, public authorities

failing in furnishing the requisite information

could be penalised. It is true that in cases of

intentional delay, the same provision could be

invoked but in cases where there is simple delay

the commission has been clothed adequate

power. With regard the training the public

authorities, it was observed that the petitioners

cannot avoid the mandatory provisions of Sub-

section (1) of Section 20 of the Act on the clause



22

that even in the additional affidavit facts have not

been disclosed to show that how financial interest

of the State will suffer in case the demanded

information is supplied to respondent No.2. This

Court feels that in view of the provisions of

Section 8 of the RTI Act, no exemption can be

granted to the petitioner unless it is shown as to

how the economic interest of the State will suffer.

No explanation has been furnished in that regard.


petition.

29. ACR not private or confidential in character


Chandigarh - W.P. No. 8396 of 2008, Decided

on 19-05-2008, State of Punjab and others,

Petitioner, Vs. State Information Officer &

another, Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble J.

M.M. Kumar, J. Mrs Sabina,

1. Brief facts of this case are that respondent No. 2

filed an application under the Right to

Information Act 2005 with petitioner No. 2 for

supply of copies of annual confidential reports for

the period from 1-04-2000 to 31-03-2006. The

petitioner No. 3 referred the matter to the

appellate authority. After considering the matter

the appellate authority declined the request on the

ground that the information demanded by

respondent No. 2 is confidential and same is

exempted from disclosure under section 8 of the

Act. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed an

appeal before the commission. After hearing both

sides the commission allowed the appeal which

order was challenged in writ petition.


provisions under RTI Act, the High Court

observed that perusal of section 8(1)(e) of the RTI

Act shows that it opens up with a non-obstinate

clause providing that there is no obligation cast

on the authorities to give a citizen any

information concerning the fiduciary relationship

of another person. However, the information

may still have to be made available if larger public

interest justifies such disclosure. Likewise,

according to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, if

information sought is purely personal

information without any relationship to any

public activities or interest then its disclosure

could be refused. It follows that disclosure of any

information which is in public domain, cannot be

denied. The annual Confidential Reports of a

public servant are not private in character. In any

case when an employee asks for disclosure of his

own ACR the demand cannot be declined because

now all ACRs are required to be communicated to

a public servant, whether adverse, good, very

good etc. The Supreme Court has made this

position clear in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of

India and Others (Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002,

decided on 15-05-2008).

3. Lastly it was held that it has now become

obligatory to even communicate good or better

reports to a public servants or an employee of the

corporation, board or judiciary. For this reason

the petition fails and same is dismissed.



25

various applications. The matter was taken to

Central Information Commission in Appeal but

same was rejected and, therefore, petitioner was

compelled to file present writ petition.

2. On perusal of facts and relevant provisions

under the RTI Act, the High Court observed that

the Central Information Commission has reached

the conclusion that the petitioner is seeking

information in respect of details of customers and

the same falls under the exempted category under

sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(i) of the RTI

Act. It was also observed that information sought

by the petitioner was not only from Canara Bank

but also from the Banking division of the

Government of India and from the department of

Economic Affairs , Ministry of Finance. Both

parties have transferred the RTI Applications to

the Canara Bank which is Public Authority

holding the information. Thus the petitioner was

unnecessarily approaching multiple authorities

for the same set of information knowing it fully

well that the Information requested is held by the

Canara Bank and not by other authorities

mentioned above. The competitive position of the

third party including an information relating to

commercial confidence, trade secrets or

intellectual property cannot be sought as the same

is barred under section 8(1)(d)of the RTI Act.

The personal information and the information

between the person in fiduciary relationship is

exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.

3. Lastly The High Court observed that the

petitioner was seeking the details of accounts of

other private individuals and concerns and on that

account, the same has been rightly declined.

Instead of making the payment of the loan

amount, for which he is legally bound, the

petitioner has resorted to rush the hierarchy of the

bank of filing application under the RTI Act in

respect of information for which the bank is

exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act.

4. Thus the petitioner has misused the provisions

of the RTI Act. Holding this the High Court

dismissed the writ petition on merits.

28. Section 8 -Exemptions


Chandigarh - W.P. No. 7289 of 2009 (O&M),

Decided on 1407-2009 State of Punjab,

Petitioner Vs. State Information Officer &

Ors, Respondents.

1. In this case respondent No. 2 moved an

application under the RTI Act to get copies of the

documents. The requisite information was not

supplied and, therefore, he went to the State

Information Commissioner. The petitioner

sought exemption by invoking provisions of

Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. It was contended

that if information is supplied to the respondent

No. 2 it will affect economic interest of the State.

The said argument was rejected and the State was

directed to supply information. It was held by the

State Information Commissioner that a reading of

Clause (a) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act shows

that information that would be exempt from

disclosure would be information likely to

judicially affect the sovereignty, integrity,

security of India or its strategic , scientific or

economic interests. The information demanded

in this case will not judicially affect the

sovereignty etc. and, therefore, objection taken

by the respondent is farfetched. It is against this

order of the State Information Commissioner; the

petitioner filed the present writ petition.

2. Supporting aforesaid observations of the State

Information Commissioner, the High Court held



24

that even in the additional affidavit facts have not

been disclosed to show that how financial interest

of the State will suffer in case the demanded

information is supplied to respondent No.2. This

Court feels that in view of the provisions of

Section 8 of the RTI Act, no exemption can be

granted to the petitioner unless it is shown as to

how the economic interest of the State will suffer.

No explanation has been furnished in that regard.


petition.

29. ACR not private or confidential in character


Chandigarh - W.P. No. 8396 of 2008, Decided

on 19-05-2008, State of Punjab and others,

Petitioner, Vs. State Information Officer &


M.M. Kumar, J. Mrs Sabina,

1. Brief facts of this case are that respondent No. 2

filed an application under the Right to

Information Act 2005 with petitioner No. 2 for

supply of copies of annual confidential reports for

the period from 1-04-2000 to 31-03-2006. The

petitioner No. 3 referred the matter to the

appellate authority. After considering the matter

the appellate authority declined the request on the

ground that the information demanded by

respondent No. 2 is confidential and same is

exempted from disclosure under section 8 of the

Act. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed an

appeal before the commission. After hearing both

sides the commission allowed the appeal which

order was challenged in writ petition.


provisions under RTI Act, the High Court

observed that perusal of section 8(1)(e) of the RTI

Act shows that it opens up with a non-obstinate

clause providing that there is no obligation cast

on the authorities to give a citizen any

information concerning the fiduciary relationship

of another person. However, the information

may still have to be made available if larger public

interest justifies such disclosure. Likewise,

according to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, if

information sought is purely personal

information without any relationship to any

public activities or interest then its disclosure

could be refused. It follows that disclosure of any

information which is in public domain, cannot be

denied. The annual Confidential Reports of a

public servant are not private in character. In any

case when an employee asks for disclosure of his

own ACR the demand cannot be declined because

now all ACRs are required to be communicated to

a public servant, whether adverse, good, very

good etc. The Supreme Court has made this

position clear in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of

India and Others (Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002,

decided on 15-05-2008).

3. Lastly it was held that it has now become

obligatory to even communicate good or better

reports to a public servants or an employee of the

corporation, board or judiciary. For this reason

the petition fails and same is dismissed.



25

various applications. The matter was taken to

Central Information Commission in Appeal but

same was rejected and, therefore, petitioner was

compelled to file present writ petition.

2. On perusal of facts and relevant provisions

under the RTI Act, the High Court observed that

the Central Information Commission has reached

the conclusion that the petitioner is seeking

information in respect of details of customers and

the same falls under the exempted category under

sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(i) of the RTI

Act. It was also observed that information sought

by the petitioner was not only from Canara Bank

but also from the Banking division of the

Government of India and from the department of

Economic Affairs , Ministry of Finance. Both

parties have transferred the RTI Applications to

the Canara Bank which is Public Authority

holding the information. Thus the petitioner was

unnecessarily approaching multiple authorities

for the same set of information knowing it fully

well that the Information requested is held by the

Canara Bank and not by other authorities

mentioned above. The competitive position of the

third party including an information relating to

commercial confidence, trade secrets or

intellectual property cannot be sought as the same

is barred under section 8(1)(d)of the RTI Act.

The personal information and the information

between the person in fiduciary relationship is

exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.

3. Lastly The High Court observed that the

petitioner was seeking the details of accounts of

other private individuals and concerns and on that

account, the same has been rightly declined.

Instead of making the payment of the loan

amount, for which he is legally bound, the

petitioner has resorted to rush the hierarchy of the

bank of filing application under the RTI Act in

respect of information for which the bank is

exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act.

4. Thus the petitioner has misused the provisions

of the RTI Act. Holding this the High Court

dismissed the writ petition on merits.

28. Section 8 -Exemptions


Chandigarh - W.P. No. 7289 of 2009 (O&M),

Decided on 1407-2009 State of Punjab,

Petitioner Vs. State Information Officer &

Ors, Respondents.

1. In this case respondent No. 2 moved an

application under the RTI Act to get copies of the

documents. The requisite information was not

supplied and, therefore, he went to the State

Information Commissioner. The petitioner

sought exemption by invoking provisions of

Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. It was contended

that if information is supplied to the respondent

No. 2 it will affect economic interest of the State.

The said argument was rejected and the State was

directed to supply information. It was held by the

State Information Commissioner that a reading of

Clause (a) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act shows

that information that would be exempt from

disclosure would be information likely to

judicially affect the sovereignty, integrity,

security of India or its strategic , scientific or

economic interests. The information demanded

in this case will not judicially affect the

sovereignty etc. and, therefore, objection taken

by the respondent is farfetched. It is against this

order of the State Information Commissioner; the

petitioner filed the present writ petition.

2. Supporting aforesaid observations of the State

Information Commissioner, the High Court held



24

the State of Punjab, despite lapse of five years

since SECTION 4 OF THE Act has been

enforced, it is difficult to say how the State can

accomplish of the said exercise within a period of

one month, which was prayed for. Absence of

any explanation forthcoming from State of

Punjab for its failure even to make a beginning is

a clear indicative of a total failure on its part in

complying with the requirements of the Act.

Holding this, the writ petition was disposed of

with the direction that while the State of Haryana

and Union Territory Administration Chandigarh

would keep its Rules , Regulations, instructions

and manuals updated from time to time. The

State of Punjab shall publish the Rules,

Regulations, instructions and manuals referred in

Section 4(1)(b)(v) of the Act as early as but not

later than 6 months from today.

32. Complaint against State Information Commission,


Chandigarh - Writ Petition No. 6272 of 2009-

Decided on 20-07-2009- H.C. Arora,

Advocate- Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab and

others- Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble C.J.

T. S. Thakur, J. Kanwaljitsingh Ahluwalia

1. This petition filed in public interest makes a

grievance against lethargic and unsatisfactory

working of the Punjab State Information

Commission causing inconvenience to those

invoking the provisions of the Right to

Information Act. In response to the notice issued

by this Court the Commission has denied the

allegations and gave details of how the

information commission is doing its best to clear

the backlog and the current cases. After hearing

both the sides, the High Court observed that no

case is made out for the intervention at this stage

of the proceeding. The proper course for the

petitioner would be to make whatever

suggestions he has to offer before the Chief

Information Commissioner, to improve the

process and procedures being followed by the

Commission. The petitioner submitted that a

representation suggesting certain steps that need

to be taken for streamlining the working of

commission has already been filed . If that be so,

the Chief Information Commissioner may look

into the same and take necessary remedial steps

wherever necessary. With these observations the

High Court disposed off the writ petition.

33. Public Authority u/s 2 (h)

W.P.No. 1105/2009, Decided on 25-02-2008-

D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society

and othersPetitioners Vs. Director of Public

Instruction (Schools), UT Administration and

others-- Respondents. CORAM: Hon'ble J.

M. M. Kumar, J. Jaswant Singh

1. The short issue raised in this writ petition was

whether the D.A.V. College at Chandigarh could

be regarded as “Public Authority” within the

meaning of Section 2(h)(d) of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act'). On

perusal of the record the High Court observed that

the petitioners are receiving substantial grant-in-

aid from the Chandigarh administration. Once

the Government substantially finances a body, the

functions of such body partake the character of

'public authority'. The definition of expression

'Public Authority' itself shows that 'public

authority' would include any organization body

owned, controlled or substantially financed

directly or indirectly by funds provided by the

Government or even the non-government



27

30. Penalty u/s 20



Decided on 10-09- 2009, Shaheed Kanshi Ram

Memorial College and another, Petitioner Vs.

State Information Commission, Punjab &


Jasbir Singh

1. In this case the respondent No. 3 had filed an

application under the RTI Act seeking some

information, to be supplied by the petitioners.

The respondent No.3 received incorrect

information and, therefore, he filed complaint

before the State Information Commission which

gave a specific finding that the information

supplied was not complete. This order of State

Information Commission was the subject matter

of present writ petition.

2. The High Court concurred with the finding of

the State Information Commission that the

information was incomplete. The second

important shortcoming was his refusal and

reluctance to give to the complainant part of the

information for which she had applied viz. the

details mentioning the dates on which the

instalments were deducted from her salary. Even

in the statement prepared by the respondent in

compliance with the Court's order, this

information had been deliberately suppressed.

There were other anomalies also. Taking note of

these shortcomings a notice was issued to

petitioner No. 2 to show-cause as to why penal

action be not initiated against him under section

20 of the Act. It was admitted that the original

order by which the State Information

Commission held that information supplied was

not complete, was never challenged by the

petitioner. It has become final. If that is so,

imposition of penalty is perfectly justified. As

per the provisions of the Act, the public

Information Officer is supposed to supply correct

information that too in a time bound manner.

Once the finding was given that he has not acted

in the manner prescribed under the Act,

imposition of penalty is perfectly justified. No

case is made for interference. Holding this the


31. Proactive Disclosure


Chandigarh - CWP No. 8209 of 2007, Decided

on 10-08-2009, H.C. Arora .. Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and others .. Respondents.

CORAM : Hon'ble J. T.S. Thakur, J Kanwaljit

Singh Ahluwalia

1. This writ petition was filed in public interest. It

prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent

to place all the acts and rules in force in the States

of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of

Chandigarh on their respective official websites

for the benefits of general public having regard to

the obligations enjoined upon them, under

section 4(1)(b)(v) of the Right to Information Act,

2005 (For short, the Act)

2. After hearing both sides, the High Court held

that Section 4 of the Act requires every public

authority to publish within 120 days from the date

of enactment of the Act, the information

stipulated therein. Section 4(1)(b)(v) requires the

Rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and

records held by the public authority. This

obligation involves a mammoth exercise at all

levels. If the said exercise has not even begun in



26

the State of Punjab, despite lapse of five years

since SECTION 4 OF THE Act has been

enforced, it is difficult to say how the State can

accomplish of the said exercise within a period of

one month, which was prayed for. Absence of

any explanation forthcoming from State of

Punjab for its failure even to make a beginning is

a clear indicative of a total failure on its part in

complying with the requirements of the Act.

Holding this, the writ petition was disposed of

with the direction that while the State of Haryana

and Union Territory Administration Chandigarh

would keep its Rules , Regulations, instructions

and manuals updated from time to time. The

State of Punjab shall publish the Rules,

Regulations, instructions and manuals referred in

Section 4(1)(b)(v) of the Act as early as but not

later than 6 months from today.

32. Complaint against State Information Commission,


Chandigarh - Writ Petition No. 6272 of 2009-

Decided on 20-07-2009- H.C. Arora,

Advocate- Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab and

others- Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble C.J.

T. S. Thakur, J. Kanwaljitsingh Ahluwalia

1. This petition filed in public interest makes a

grievance against lethargic and unsatisfactory

working of the Punjab State Information

Commission causing inconvenience to those

invoking the provisions of the Right to

Information Act. In response to the notice issued

by this Court the Commission has denied the

allegations and gave details of how the

information commission is doing its best to clear

the backlog and the current cases. After hearing

both the sides, the High Court observed that no

case is made out for the intervention at this stage

of the proceeding. The proper course for the

petitioner would be to make whatever

suggestions he has to offer before the Chief

Information Commissioner, to improve the

process and procedures being followed by the

Commission. The petitioner submitted that a

representation suggesting certain steps that need

to be taken for streamlining the working of

commission has already been filed . If that be so,

the Chief Information Commissioner may look

into the same and take necessary remedial steps

wherever necessary. With these observations the

High Court disposed off the writ petition.

33. Public Authority u/s 2 (h)

W.P.No. 1105/2009, Decided on 25-02-2008-

D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society

and othersPetitioners Vs. Director of Public

Instruction (Schools), UT Administration and

others-- Respondents. CORAM: Hon'ble J.

M. M. Kumar, J. Jaswant Singh

1. The short issue raised in this writ petition was

whether the D.A.V. College at Chandigarh could

be regarded as “Public Authority” within the

meaning of Section 2(h)(d) of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act'). On

perusal of the record the High Court observed that

the petitioners are receiving substantial grant-in-

aid from the Chandigarh administration. Once

the Government substantially finances a body, the

functions of such body partake the character of

'public authority'. The definition of expression

'Public Authority' itself shows that 'public

authority' would include any organization body

owned, controlled or substantially financed


Government or even the non-government



27

30. Penalty u/s 20



Decided on 10-09- 2009, Shaheed Kanshi Ram

Memorial College and another, Petitioner Vs.

State Information Commission, Punjab &


Jasbir Singh

1. In this case the respondent No. 3 had filed an

application under the RTI Act seeking some

information, to be supplied by the petitioners.

The respondent No.3 received incorrect

information and, therefore, he filed complaint

before the State Information Commission which

gave a specific finding that the information

supplied was not complete. This order of State

Information Commission was the subject matter

of present writ petition.

2. The High Court concurred with the finding of

the State Information Commission that the

information was incomplete. The second

important shortcoming was his refusal and

reluctance to give to the complainant part of the

information for which she had applied viz. the

details mentioning the dates on which the

instalments were deducted from her salary. Even

in the statement prepared by the respondent in

compliance with the Court's order, this

information had been deliberately suppressed.

There were other anomalies also. Taking note of

these shortcomings a notice was issued to

petitioner No. 2 to show-cause as to why penal

action be not initiated against him under section

20 of the Act. It was admitted that the original

order by which the State Information

Commission held that information supplied was

not complete, was never challenged by the

petitioner. It has become final. If that is so,

imposition of penalty is perfectly justified. As

per the provisions of the Act, the public

Information Officer is supposed to supply correct

information that too in a time bound manner.

Once the finding was given that he has not acted

in the manner prescribed under the Act,

imposition of penalty is perfectly justified. No

case is made for interference. Holding this the


31. Proactive Disclosure


Chandigarh - CWP No. 8209 of 2007, Decided

on 10-08-2009, H.C. Arora .. Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and others .. Respondents.

CORAM : Hon'ble J. T.S. Thakur, J Kanwaljit

Singh Ahluwalia

1. This writ petition was filed in public interest. It

prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent

to place all the acts and rules in force in the States

of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of

Chandigarh on their respective official websites

for the benefits of general public having regard to

the obligations enjoined upon them, under

section 4(1)(b)(v) of the Right to Information Act,

2005 (For short, the Act)

2. After hearing both sides, the High Court held

that Section 4 of the Act requires every public

authority to publish within 120 days from the date

of enactment of the Act, the information

stipulated therein. Section 4(1)(b)(v) requires the

Rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and

records held by the public authority. This

obligation involves a mammoth exercise at all

levels. If the said exercise has not even begun in



26

1. In this case one Advocate Surinder Pal,

Advocate, filed an application under section

18(1)(c)of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

He demanded information concerning Group



Council of Punjab and Haryana. The matter was

pending adjudication before the State

Information Commission when the petition was

filed and the State Information Commission,

respondent No.1, was restrained from proceeding

further. After hearing both sides, the High Court

was of the view that the State Information

Commission, respondent No.1, has no

jurisdiction to deal with the issue raised by

Advocate Surinder Pal. On perusal of various

provisions under the Advocates Act, 1961 (for

brevity 'the Act') the High Court observed that the

petitioner Bar Council , as envisaged by Section

3(1)(d)of the Act, became inter-State body and

was subject to the directions to be issued by the

Central Government. Therefore, the States of

Punjab and Haryana or Union Territory

Chandigarh did not have any control over the

petitioner Bar Council and cannot be construed to

be appropriate Government within the meaning

of Section 2(a)of the Right to Information Act

2005 because both the states or union territory


petitioner Bar Council. The appropriate

government in the case of Bar Council obviously

would be the Central Government and, therefore,

the Chief Information Commission as envisaged

under section 12 of the 2005 Act would be

competent to deal with the issue raised by

Advocate Surinder Pal. In view of this position all

the proceeding by the State Information

Commission are set aside and direction is issued

to the Central Information Commission to

adjudicate the issue. The parties are directed to

appear before the Central Information

Commission at Delhi on 11-02-2008. The writ

petition was disposed off in the above terms.

36. M.D. Sanatam Dharam Girls College, Ambala City is a Public Authority


Chandigarh - C.W.P. No.453 of 2008, Decided

on 14-01-2008, Principal, M.D. Sanatan

Dharam Girls College, Ambala City, And

another, Petitioners Vs. State Information

Commissioner, Haryana and another,

Respondents.

The short issue raised in the writ petition is

whether M.D. Sanatam Dharam Girls College,

Ambala City, which is receiving 95% aid from the

State of Haryana is covered by the expression

"Public Authority" as per its definition given in

Section 2 (h) of R.T.I. Act 2005. The State

Information Commissioner - respondent No.l,

has held that the college is covered by the

expression, ‘Public Authority’ and has issued

directions to the petitioner to furnish complete

information to respondent No.2. On perusal of

relevant provisions under section 2 (h) of the RTI

Act and after hearing both sides, the High Court

held that the definition of Public Authority

comprises in the first category of those authorities

, bodies or institutions of self-Government

which are established or constituted by or under

the constitution or by the law made by the

Parliament or the State Legislature or by the

notification issued on orders made by the

appropriate Government, in the second category,

public authority has been defined to include

anybody owned, controlled or substantially

financed or non-government organization

substantially financed directly or indirectly by the



29

organization which is substantially financed. The

petitioner has claimed that they are getting only

45% grant-in-aid after admitting that initially the

grant-in-aid to them was to the extent of 95%. If

on account of policy of the Government the grant-

in-aid to the extent of 95% which was given

initially allowing the petitioner to build up its

own infrastructure and reducing the grant-in-aid

later would not result into an argument that no

substantial grand-in-aid is received and therefore

it could not be regarded as 'public authority'.

2. It was also observed by the High Court that

once institutions like the petitioners are

performing public functions affecting the life of a

huge segment of the society and in addition are

receiving substantial grant-in-aid then it cannot

be argued that it is not a public authority. For these

reasons the High Court dismissed the writ

petition filed by the petitioner D.A.V. College

Trust.

34. Period of 30 days would start running under section 7 of the Act when the directions for furnishing information were issued


Chandigarh - C.W.P.No.No.10027/2008 -

Decided on 08-04-2008- Umesh Kumar

Sharda and another--Petitioners Vs. the

Punjab Information Commissioner And

others Respondents, CORAM : Hon'ble J.

M.M. Kumar, J. Sabina

1. In this case the petitioner filed application for

information under the provisions of the RTI Act

for which the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 raised

preliminary objection that they cannot be

considered as Public Authority as per the

definition of that expression under the Act. The

said objection was overruled by the Commission

and it had proceeded to issue directions to them to

supply information on payment of fee at Rs. 2/-

per page as information sought was voluminous.

The petitioner insisted on furnishing of

information free of charge by placing reliance on

section 7(6) of the RTI Act that once information

has not been furnished within 30 days then such

information must be given without any charges.

However, this contention was rejected and,

therefore, the petitioner preferred writ petition

before the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution.


record the High Court was of considered view


Commission would be warranted. We do not find

any legal infirmity in the view taken by the

Commission that the period of 30 days would

start running under section 7 of the Act from 26-

02-2007 when the directions for furnishing

information were issued because earlier period

was consumed in deciding the preliminary

objection as to whether respondent societies were

public authority or not. Moreover, information

asked for by the petitioner is lengthy and

voluminous and payment of Rs. 2/- per page is not

excessive. The High Court therefore, dismissed

the writ petition holding that it is wholly devoid of

merits.

35. Appropriate Government


Chandigarh - W.P.No. 19682 of 2008, Decided

on 22-01-2008- Bar Council of Punjab &

Haryana Petitioners Vs. State Information

Commission Punjab, & others -- Respondents.

CORAM: Hon'ble J. MM Kumar, J. TPS

Mann



28

1. In this case one Advocate Surinder Pal,

Advocate, filed an application under section

18(1)(c)of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

He demanded information concerning Group



Council of Punjab and Haryana. The matter was

pending adjudication before the State

Information Commission when the petition was

filed and the State Information Commission,

respondent No.1, was restrained from proceeding

further. After hearing both sides, the High Court

was of the view that the State Information

Commission, respondent No.1, has no

jurisdiction to deal with the issue raised by

Advocate Surinder Pal. On perusal of various

provisions under the Advocates Act, 1961 (for

brevity 'the Act') the High Court observed that the

petitioner Bar Council , as envisaged by Section

3(1)(d)of the Act, became inter-State body and

was subject to the directions to be issued by the

Central Government. Therefore, the States of

Punjab and Haryana or Union Territory

Chandigarh did not have any control over the

petitioner Bar Council and cannot be construed to

be appropriate Government within the meaning

of Section 2(a)of the Right to Information Act

2005 because both the states or union territory


petitioner Bar Council. The appropriate

government in the case of Bar Council obviously

would be the Central Government and, therefore,

the Chief Information Commission as envisaged

under section 12 of the 2005 Act would be

competent to deal with the issue raised by

Advocate Surinder Pal. In view of this position all

the proceeding by the State Information

Commission are set aside and direction is issued

to the Central Information Commission to

adjudicate the issue. The parties are directed to

appear before the Central Information

Commission at Delhi on 11-02-2008. The writ

petition was disposed off in the above terms.

36. M.D. Sanatam Dharam Girls College, Ambala City is a Public Authority


Chandigarh - C.W.P. No.453 of 2008, Decided

on 14-01-2008, Principal, M.D. Sanatan

Dharam Girls College, Ambala City, And

another, Petitioners Vs. State Information

Commissioner, Haryana and another,

Respondents.

The short issue raised in the writ petition is

whether M.D. Sanatam Dharam Girls College,

Ambala City, which is receiving 95% aid from the

State of Haryana is covered by the expression

"Public Authority" as per its definition given in

Section 2 (h) of R.T.I. Act 2005. The State

Information Commissioner - respondent No.l,

has held that the college is covered by the

expression, ‘Public Authority’ and has issued

directions to the petitioner to furnish complete

information to respondent No.2. On perusal of

relevant provisions under section 2 (h) of the RTI

Act and after hearing both sides, the High Court

held that the definition of Public Authority

comprises in the first category of those authorities

, bodies or institutions of self-Government

which are established or constituted by or under

the constitution or by the law made by the

Parliament or the State Legislature or by the

notification issued on orders made by the

appropriate Government, in the second category,

public authority has been defined to include

anybody owned, controlled or substantially

financed or non-government organization

substantially financed directly or indirectly by the



29

organization which is substantially financed. The

petitioner has claimed that they are getting only

45% grant-in-aid after admitting that initially the

grant-in-aid to them was to the extent of 95%. If

on account of policy of the Government the grant-

in-aid to the extent of 95% which was given

initially allowing the petitioner to build up its

own infrastructure and reducing the grant-in-aid

later would not result into an argument that no

substantial grand-in-aid is received and therefore

it could not be regarded as 'public authority'.


once institutions like the petitioners are

performing public functions affecting the life of a

huge segment of the society and in addition are

receiving substantial grant-in-aid then it cannot

be argued that it is not a public authority. For these

reasons the High Court dismissed the writ

petition filed by the petitioner D.A.V. College

Trust.

34. Period of 30 days would start running under section 7 of the Act when the directions for furnishing information were issued


Chandigarh - C.W.P.No.No.10027/2008 -

Decided on 08-04-2008- Umesh Kumar

Sharda and another--Petitioners Vs. the

Punjab Information Commissioner And

others Respondents, CORAM : Hon'ble J.

M.M. Kumar, J. Sabina

1. In this case the petitioner filed application for

information under the provisions of the RTI Act

for which the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 raised

preliminary objection that they cannot be

considered as Public Authority as per the

definition of that expression under the Act. The

said objection was overruled by the Commission

and it had proceeded to issue directions to them to

supply information on payment of fee at Rs. 2/-

per page as information sought was voluminous.

The petitioner insisted on furnishing of

information free of charge by placing reliance on

section 7(6) of the RTI Act that once information

has not been furnished within 30 days then such

information must be given without any charges.

However, this contention was rejected and,

therefore, the petitioner preferred writ petition

before the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution.


record the High Court was of considered view


Commission would be warranted. We do not find

any legal infirmity in the view taken by the

Commission that the period of 30 days would

start running under section 7 of the Act from 26-

02-2007 when the directions for furnishing

information were issued because earlier period

was consumed in deciding the preliminary

objection as to whether respondent societies were

public authority or not. Moreover, information

asked for by the petitioner is lengthy and

voluminous and payment of Rs. 2/- per page is not

excessive. The High Court therefore, dismissed

the writ petition holding that it is wholly devoid of

merits.

35. Appropriate Government


Chandigarh - W.P.No. 19682 of 2008, Decided

on 22-01-2008- Bar Council of Punjab &

Haryana Petitioners Vs. State Information

Commission Punjab, & others -- Respondents.

CORAM: Hon'ble J. MM Kumar, J. TPS

Mann



28

i) As per Section 11 of the Act,2005, third party

should be given a written notice if Public

Information Officer intends to disclose or

supply, the information 'relating to or

supplied by the third party';

ii) The said notice ought to be given by the

Public Information Officer as to which

information is asked by the applicant about

the third party. Thus, nature of information

asked by the applicant has to be revealed in

the said notice;

iii) Third party has right to treat the said

information as confidential, looking to the

several factors, viz. nature of business of the

third party, nature of commercial

transactions, looking to the nature of

correspondence with o t h e r v a r i o u s

Institutes, looking to the nature of reports

supplied by the third party or supplied by

some other Institutions about the third party,

etc. Third party can treat the information as

confidential at any stage, prior to grant or

disclosure of information to the original

applicant, by Public Information Officer;

iv) Third party ought to be invited to make a

submission in writing or orally by Public

Information Officer;

v) It is a right vested in the third party that such

submission shall be kept in view, while

taking a decision by Public Information

Officer about disclosure of information

(as per Section 11(1) of the Act,2005) or

third party has right that the Public

Information Officer shall take into

consideration the representation made by a

third party under Section 11 (as per Section

7(7) of the Act,2005);

vi) Third party has a right of personal hearing to

be given by Public Information Officer.

Looking to Section 8(d) and 8(j) and proviso

to Section 11(1), disclosure of information

may be allowed,

(i) if public interest in disclosure, outweighs,

harm or injury to the protected interest of

third party, or

(ii) if larger public interest warrants the

disclosure of such information. This will be a

complex decision by Public Information

Officer, as it will have direct nexus with

some of the important rights of third party. It

may harm the competitive position of third

party or it may tantamount to unwarranted

invasion, upon right of privacy;

Therefore also, in my opinion, personal

hearing ought to be afforded to the third

party.

vii) Third party has a right to get speaking

order. If order is not a speaking order then,

the Appellate Authority cannot read the

mind of the Public Information Officer.

Right to prefer an appeal has been give to the

third party under Section 19 of the Act,2005.

Reasons of the order, is the soul of the order,

without which order has no life. Otherwise

also, non-speaking order leads to

arbitrariness. In case of Mr.A information

will be ordered to supply whereas in other

case, it can be denied. Arbitrariness and

equality are sworn enemies of each other.

Where arbitrariness is present, equality is

absent and where, equality is present,

arbitrariness is absent.

Post-decision Rights :

viii) (When Public Information Officer orders to

disclose an information 'relating to or

supplied by third party and has been treated

as confidential by that third party' under

Section 7, and if third party prays for stay of



31

funds provided by the appropriate Government.

There is no controversy that the petitioner has

been receiving 95% aid from the State of Haryana

to disburse the salary and to meet the expenses of

its employees. Therefore, it is covered by the

expression used in Section 2 (h) (d) (ii) of the

Right to Information Act 2005 viz. non-

government organisation substantially financed

directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the

appropriate Government. Lastly it was held that

the title of the RTI would highlight the need of

liberal interpretation of the provisions, which is

further supported by the use of the expression

'instrumentality of the State'. The petitioner is,

therefore, fully covered by the expression 'public

authority' and such the order passed by the

Commission is unassailable. The writ petition

was dismissed.

37. Third Party Information & PIOs quasi-judicial role

High Court Of Gujarat - Special Civil

Application No. 16073 Of 2007 With Special

Civil Application No. 17067 Of 2007. Reliance

Industries Limited Petitioner Versus Gujarat

State Information Commission & 4 CORAM

: Hon'ble J. D.N. Patel

It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Indian National Congress V/s.

Institute of Social Welfare and others reported

in AIR 2002 SC 2158, especially in para-24, as

under : Para 24.

The legal principles laying down when an act of a

statutory authority would be a quasi-judicial act,

which emerge from the aforestated decisions are

these Where (a) a statutory authority empowered

under a statute to do any act (b) which would

prejudicially affect the subject (c) although there

is no lis or two contending parties and the contest

is between the authority and the subject and (d)

the statutory authority is required to act judicially

under the statute, the decision of the said

authority is quasi-judicial.

Applying the aforesaid principle, we are of the

view that the presence of a lis or contest between

the contending parties before a statutory

authority, in the absence of any other attributes of

a quasi-judicial authority is sufficient to hold that

such a statutory authority is quasi-judicial

authority. However, in the absence of a lis before

a statutory authority, the authority would be

quasi-judicial authority if it is required to act

judicially.â¬ý (Emphasis supplied) Thus, in view

of the aforesaid decision also, Public Information

Officer is a quasi-judicial authority as is

empowered under the statute i.e the Act,2005 to

do an act (disclosing of information), which

would affect prejudicially a third party. Third

party can prefer an appeal under Section 19(2) of

the Act,2005. Therefore, such authority has to

pass a reasoned order.

Rights of third party : There are certain rights

conferred by the Act,2005 to the third party, prior

to disclosure of information. Likewise, as stated

hereinabove, there are also certain rights, which

are vested in the third party, after an order of

disclosure of the information 'relating to or

supplied by the third party and has been treated as

confidential by that third party'. As per Section

2(n) of the Act,2005, the present petitioner is a

third party. Looking to the provisions of the

Act,2005, especially Section 7(7), 8(d) and 8(j)

read with Section 11 as well as under Section 19

of the Act,2005, third party has certain rights, in

relation to disclosure of information relating to

third party or supplied by third party : (para-15)

Pre-decisional Rights :



30

i) As per Section 11 of the Act,2005, third party

should be given a written notice if Public

Information Officer intends to disclose or

supply, the information 'relating to or

supplied by the third party';

ii) The said notice ought to be given by the

Public Information Officer as to which

information is asked by the applicant about

the third party. Thus, nature of information

asked by the applicant has to be revealed in

the said notice;

iii) Third party has right to treat the said

information as confidential, looking to the

several factors, viz. nature of business of the

third party, nature of commercial

transactions, looking to the nature of

correspondence with o t h e r v a r i o u s

Institutes, looking to the nature of reports

supplied by the third party or supplied by

some other Institutions about the third party,

etc. Third party can treat the information as

confidential at any stage, prior to grant or

disclosure of information to the original

applicant, by Public Information Officer;

iv) Third party ought to be invited to make a

submission in writing or orally by Public

Information Officer;

v) It is a right vested in the third party that such

submission shall be kept in view, while

taking a decision by Public Information

Officer about disclosure of information

(as per Section 11(1) of the Act,2005) or

third party has right that the Public

Information Officer shall take into

consideration the representation made by a

third party under Section 11 (as per Section

7(7) of the Act,2005);

vi) Third party has a right of personal hearing to

be given by Public Information Officer.

Looking to Section 8(d) and 8(j) and proviso

to Section 11(1), disclosure of information

may be allowed,

(i) if public interest in disclosure, outweighs,

harm or injury to the protected interest of

third party, or

(ii) if larger public interest warrants the

disclosure of such information. This will be a

complex decision by Public Information

Officer, as it will have direct nexus with

some of the important rights of third party. It

may harm the competitive position of third

party or it may tantamount to unwarranted

invasion, upon right of privacy;

Therefore also, in my opinion, personal

hearing ought to be afforded to the third

party.

vii) Third party has a right to get speaking

order. If order is not a speaking order then,

the Appellate Authority cannot read the

mind of the Public Information Officer.

Right to prefer an appeal has been give to the

third party under Section 19 of the Act,2005.

Reasons of the order, is the soul of the order,

without which order has no life. Otherwise

also, non-speaking order leads to

arbitrariness. In case of Mr.A information

will be ordered to supply whereas in other

case, it can be denied. Arbitrariness and

equality are sworn enemies of each other.

Where arbitrariness is present, equality is

absent and where, equality is present,


Post-decision Rights :

viii) (When Public Information Officer orders to

disclose an information 'relating to or

supplied by third party and has been treated

as confidential by that third party' under

Section 7, and if third party prays for stay of



31

funds provided by the appropriate Government.

There is no controversy that the petitioner has

been receiving 95% aid from the State of Haryana

to disburse the salary and to meet the expenses of

its employees. Therefore, it is covered by the

expression used in Section 2 (h) (d) (ii) of the

Right to Information Act 2005 viz. non-

government organisation substantially financed

directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the

appropriate Government. Lastly it was held that

the title of the RTI would highlight the need of

liberal interpretation of the provisions, which is

further supported by the use of the expression

'instrumentality of the State'. The petitioner is,

therefore, fully covered by the expression 'public

authority' and such the order passed by the

Commission is unassailable. The writ petition

was dismissed.

37. Third Party Information & PIOs quasi-judicial role

High Court Of Gujarat - Special Civil

Application No. 16073 Of 2007 With Special

Civil Application No. 17067 Of 2007. Reliance

Industries Limited Petitioner Versus Gujarat

State Information Commission & 4 CORAM

: Hon'ble J. D.N. Patel

It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Indian National Congress V/s.

Institute of Social Welfare and others reported

in AIR 2002 SC 2158, especially in para-24, as

under : Para 24.

The legal principles laying down when an act of a

statutory authority would be a quasi-judicial act,

which emerge from the aforestated decisions are

these Where (a) a statutory authority empowered

under a statute to do any act (b) which would

prejudicially affect the subject (c) although there

is no lis or two contending parties and the contest

is between the authority and the subject and (d)

the statutory authority is required to act judicially

under the statute, the decision of the said

authority is quasi-judicial.

Applying the aforesaid principle, we are of the

view that the presence of a lis or contest between

the contending parties before a statutory

authority, in the absence of any other attributes of

a quasi-judicial authority is sufficient to hold that

such a statutory authority is quasi-judicial

authority. However, in the absence of a lis before

a statutory authority, the authority would be

quasi-judicial authority if it is required to act

judicially.â¬ý (Emphasis supplied) Thus, in view

of the aforesaid decision also, Public Information

Officer is a quasi-judicial authority as is

empowered under the statute i.e the Act,2005 to

do an act (disclosing of information), which

would affect prejudicially a third party. Third

party can prefer an appeal under Section 19(2) of

the Act,2005. Therefore, such authority has to

pass a reasoned order.

Rights of third party : There are certain rights

conferred by the Act,2005 to the third party, prior

to disclosure of information. Likewise, as stated

hereinabove, there are also certain rights, which

are vested in the third party, after an order of

disclosure of the information 'relating to or

supplied by the third party and has been treated as

confidential by that third party'. As per Section

2(n) of the Act,2005, the present petitioner is a

third party. Looking to the provisions of the

Act,2005, especially Section 7(7), 8(d) and 8(j)

read with Section 11 as well as under Section 19

of the Act,2005, third party has certain rights, in

relation to disclosure of information relating to

third party or supplied by third party : (para-15)

Pre-decisional Rights :



30

38. Misuse of Powers Vested in CIC.

High Court Of Gujarat - SCA No. 16770/2007,

Dated 31-08-2007, Gokalbhai Nanabhai

Patel, Petitioner Vs. Chief Information

Commissioner and others, Respondents,

CORAM : Hon. J. D. N. Patel.

In this case writ petition was preferred to ventilate

the grievances about misuse of powers vested in

Chief Information Commission, under the Right

to Information Act 2005. By the impugned order

the CIC directed to remove the encroachment

without giving an opportunity of being heard to

the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the High

Court held that the impugned order is passed

without any power, jurisdiction and authority

vested in CIC under the RTI Act. The powers of

the said Information Commission are reflected in

Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act. Looking to

these powers, the orders of removal of

encroachment is absolutely illegal and dehorses

the provisions of RTI Act. At the most the

information may be supplied or may be denied

but further order of removal of encroachment

cannot be passed. Whether there is encroachment

or not is a civil dispute and cannot be decided by

CIC. Apart from this no procedure prescribe

under section 1(1) of the RTI Act since no

opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.

But the petitioner was never a party in the first

appeal as well as in the second appeal and the

order was passed against him without issuing any

notice and, therefore, the impugned order

deserves to be quashed and set aside. Holding

this the impugned order was quashed and set

aside by allowing the writ petition.

39. Third Party Rights


Dated : 3-10-2007, B.J. Dhandha, Petitioner

Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and

others, Respondents, CORAM : Hon'ble J.

D.N. Patel

In this case the High Court of Gujarat had

preferred the petition against the order passed by

CIC, State of Gujarat whereby the High Court

was directed to supply the information to

respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 had

applied for information, which was pertaining to

vigilance enquiry, initiated against one V.J.

Vanodiya - clerk serving with District Court,

Ahmedabad (Rural). this inquiry was conducted

under the level of District Court, Ahmedabad

(Rural) As the document of the said enquiry was

not with the High Court, the vigilance cell of the

High Court informed the petitioner in his capacity

of Public Information Officer that the papers of

vigilance Inquiry case were not available with the

High Court. Being aggrieved by the said

information respondent No. 2 preferred first

appeal before the Registrar of the High Court.

The said appeal was dismissed against which the

respondent No. 2 preferred second appeal before

CIC State of Gujarath under section 19 of the RTI

Act. The said second appeal was allowed and the

High Court was directed to supply the

information sought by respondent No. 2 within 15

days. Against this order the High Court of Gujarat

preferred a writ petition in Gujarat High Court.

After considering the provisions under the RTI

Act and also the provisions under the Gujarat

High Court (Right to Information) Rules 2005 the

High Court observed that respondent No. 2 had

applied for getting information which was



33

operation, implementation and execution of

the order to prefer an appeal, or to approach

higher forum generally it ought to be given

at least till appeal period is over, except for

the cogent reasons, to be recorded in writing.

Wrongly disclosed/supplied, confidential

information relating to third party or

supplied by third party, will be like

spreading over, of air. It is practically

impossible, for appellate forum, even if third

party succeed in first appeal or second

appeal or in writ petition, to order to return

the wrongly disclosed information. Like

smell, it will spread over from one hand to

another hand, information can reach to

different hands without any restriction.

There is no restriction, after getting

information.

ix) It is a right vested in a third party to get notice

in writing of the decision of the Public

Information Officer with a statement

therein, that a third party is entitle to prefer

an appeal (as per Section 11(3) and 11(4) of

the Act,2005)

x) Third party has a right to prefer First Appeal

against the order passed by Public

Information Officer (as per Section 19(2) of

the Act,2005) xi)Third party has a right to

prefer Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of

the Act,2005.

xii) Third party has a right of personal hearing

before Appellate Authority as well as

Second Appellate Authority (as per Rule

6(4)(v) of the Rules,2005) as well as under

Section 19(4) of the Act,2005.

The concerned respondent authorities

have violated the aforesaid rights of the third

party. No notice was given to the third party, nor

even the third party was heard before imparting

the information by the respondent authorities.

The impugned orders are non- speaking orders.

Hence, the impugned orders deserve to be

quashed and set aside.

16. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts,

reasons and judicial pronouncements, the order st

dated 31 January, 2007 passed by respondent

No.1 i.e. Gujarat State Information Commission

(Annexure to the memo of the petition) as well as ththe order dated 9 March,2007 passed by

respondent No.2 i.e Labour Commissioner and

Appellate Authority (Annexure to the memo of

the petition) as well as the communication dated th9 March,2007 issued by respondent No.4 i.e.

Public Information Officer (Annexure to the

memo of the petition) are hereby quashed and set

aside. The original applicant Rasiklal Mardia is

hereby directed not to make use of said

information for any purpose whatsoever.

Respondent No.1 â¬ Gujarat State Information

Commission is hereby restrained from

proceeding further with application preferred by

the original applicant under Section 18 of the Act,

2005 being Complaint No.541/06-07.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in Special Civil

Application No.17067 of 2007 are hereby

directed not to entertain any applications

preferred at the instance of the original applicant

under the provisions of the Act, 2005 concerning

the petitioner and its group Companies for

imparting or disclosing information to the

original applicant, without following due

procedure under the Act,2005 and in compliance

with the aforesaid directions given in the

aforesaid paras of this judgment nor any such

applications shall be proceeded further by

respondent Nos.1 to 6, except after following

provisions of the Act,2005 and interpretation

thereof made hereinabove, in this judgement.

Rule made absolute in both the petitions.



32

38. Misuse of Powers Vested in CIC.


Dated 31-08-2007, Gokalbhai Nanabhai

Patel, Petitioner Vs. Chief Information

Commissioner and others, Respondents,

CORAM : Hon. J. D. N. Patel.

In this case writ petition was preferred to ventilate

the grievances about misuse of powers vested in

Chief Information Commission, under the Right

to Information Act 2005. By the impugned order

the CIC directed to remove the encroachment


the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the High

Court held that the impugned order is passed

without any power, jurisdiction and authority

vested in CIC under the RTI Act. The powers of

the said Information Commission are reflected in

Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act. Looking to

these powers, the orders of removal of

encroachment is absolutely illegal and dehorses

the provisions of RTI Act. At the most the

information may be supplied or may be denied

but further order of removal of encroachment

cannot be passed. Whether there is encroachment

or not is a civil dispute and cannot be decided by

CIC. Apart from this no procedure prescribe

under section 1(1) of the RTI Act since no

opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.

But the petitioner was never a party in the first

appeal as well as in the second appeal and the

order was passed against him without issuing any

notice and, therefore, the impugned order

deserves to be quashed and set aside. Holding

this the impugned order was quashed and set

aside by allowing the writ petition.

39. Third Party Rights


Dated : 3-10-2007, B.J. Dhandha, Petitioner

Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and

others, Respondents, CORAM : Hon'ble J.

D.N. Patel

In this case the High Court of Gujarat had

preferred the petition against the order passed by

CIC, State of Gujarat whereby the High Court

was directed to supply the information to

respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 had

applied for information, which was pertaining to

vigilance enquiry, initiated against one V.J.

Vanodiya - clerk serving with District Court,

Ahmedabad (Rural). this inquiry was conducted

under the level of District Court, Ahmedabad

(Rural) As the document of the said enquiry was

not with the High Court, the vigilance cell of the

High Court informed the petitioner in his capacity

of Public Information Officer that the papers of

vigilance Inquiry case were not available with the

High Court. Being aggrieved by the said

information respondent No. 2 preferred first

appeal before the Registrar of the High Court.

The said appeal was dismissed against which the

respondent No. 2 preferred second appeal before

CIC State of Gujarath under section 19 of the RTI

Act. The said second appeal was allowed and the

High Court was directed to supply the

information sought by respondent No. 2 within 15

days. Against this order the High Court of Gujarat

preferred a writ petition in Gujarat High Court.

After considering the provisions under the RTI

Act and also the provisions under the Gujarat

High Court (Right to Information) Rules 2005 the

High Court observed that respondent No. 2 had

applied for getting information which was



33

operation, implementation and execution of

the order to prefer an appeal, or to approach

higher forum generally it ought to be given

at least till appeal period is over, except for

the cogent reasons, to be recorded in writing.

Wrongly disclosed/supplied, confidential

information relating to third party or

supplied by third party, will be like

spreading over, of air. It is practically

impossible, for appellate forum, even if third

party succeed in first appeal or second

appeal or in writ petition, to order to return

the wrongly disclosed information. Like

smell, it will spread over from one hand to

another hand, information can reach to

different hands without any restriction.

There is no restriction, after getting

information.

ix) It is a right vested in a third party to get notice

in writing of the decision of the Public

Information Officer with a statement

therein, that a third party is entitle to prefer

an appeal (as per Section 11(3) and 11(4) of

the Act,2005)

x) Third party has a right to prefer First Appeal

against the order passed by Public

Information Officer (as per Section 19(2) of

the Act,2005) xi)Third party has a right to

prefer Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of

the Act,2005.

xii) Third party has a right of personal hearing

before Appellate Authority as well as

Second Appellate Authority (as per Rule

6(4)(v) of the Rules,2005) as well as under

Section 19(4) of the Act,2005.

The concerned respondent authorities

have violated the aforesaid rights of the third

party. No notice was given to the third party, nor

even the third party was heard before imparting

the information by the respondent authorities.

The impugned orders are non- speaking orders.

Hence, the impugned orders deserve to be

quashed and set aside.

16. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts,

reasons and judicial pronouncements, the order st

dated 31 January, 2007 passed by respondent

No.1 i.e. Gujarat State Information Commission

(Annexure to the memo of the petition) as well as ththe order dated 9 March,2007 passed by

respondent No.2 i.e Labour Commissioner and

Appellate Authority (Annexure to the memo of

the petition) as well as the communication dated th9 March,2007 issued by respondent No.4 i.e.

Public Information Officer (Annexure to the

memo of the petition) are hereby quashed and set

aside. The original applicant Rasiklal Mardia is

hereby directed not to make use of said

information for any purpose whatsoever.

Respondent No.1 â¬ Gujarat State Information

Commission is hereby restrained from

proceeding further with application preferred by

the original applicant under Section 18 of the Act,

2005 being Complaint No.541/06-07.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in Special Civil

Application No.17067 of 2007 are hereby

directed not to entertain any applications

preferred at the instance of the original applicant

under the provisions of the Act, 2005 concerning

the petitioner and its group Companies for

imparting or disclosing information to the

original applicant, without following due

procedure under the Act,2005 and in compliance

with the aforesaid directions given in the

aforesaid paras of this judgment nor any such

applications shall be proceeded further by

respondent Nos.1 to 6, except after following

provisions of the Act,2005 and interpretation

thereof made hereinabove, in this judgement.

Rule made absolute in both the petitions.



32

section 1(1) of the Act and also keeping in

mind Section 7(7) of the Act.

5) The concerned authorities have not properly

appreciated that the petitioner was never a

party in the first appeal as well as in the

second appeal and the order has been passed

against the petitioner.

6) The order passed without giving an

opportunity of being heard, lead to

arbitrariness. Arbitrariness and equality are

sworn enemies of each other. Where

arbitrariness is present, equality is always

absent and where equality is present,


7) Holding aforesaid, the High Court quashed

and set aside the order passed by the State

Chief Commissioner.

41. Amitabh Bacchan is not a Public Authority

High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow

Bench - MISC. Bench No 8464/2007, Dated

01/01/2008, Braj Bhushan Dubey Vs. SIC,

Lucknow & 3 Ors, CORAM : Hon'ble J.

Udaikrishna Dhaon, J. Satyendra Singh

Chauhan.

In this connection petitioner had made a request

to Shri Amitabh Bacchan for certain information

under section 6 of the Right to Information Act

2005, relating to the advertisement which was

telecast in electronic channels. In that

advertisement Amhitabh Bacchan had said

something in a particular manner. The PIO did

not furnish the information within stipulated time

of 30 days and, therefore, a complaint under

section l18 of the Act was made before the State

Information Commission. After hearing both

sides the Chief Information Commission held

that the provisions of RTI Act are not applicable

to Shri Amitabh Bacchan in respect to the alleged

publication. After considering relevant

provisions under sections 2(h), 2(j) and 11 of the

Act, the High Court held that Shri Amitabh

Bacchan had merely acted in the advertisement

without accepting any payment as he was a brand

ambassador of Uttar Pradesh. He was an

honorary member of the Uttar Pradesh

Development Council and a Brand Ambassador

of State of U.P. and he has not availed any facility

attached to those posts. For the alleged

advertisement Shri Amitabh Bacchan was not

financed by the State Government directly or

indirectly. Holding this the High Court therefore,

held that the provisions of Right to Information

Act in respect to the alleged advisement are not

applicable to Amitabh Bacchan. The writ petition

filed by the petitioner was dismissed at the

admission stage.

42. Dhara Singh Girls High School is a Public Authority u/s 2(h)

High Court of Allahabad - W.P.(C) No.

4747/2008, Decided on 24-01-2008 Dhara

Singh Girls High School Petitioner Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary

(Secondary Education) U.P. Government

others, Respondents. CORAM: Hon'ble J.

Rakesh Tiwari

1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner sought

direction in the nature of mandamus commending

the respondent not to compel the petitioner's

institution to give information as sought by

respondent No. 5. The ground on which the relief



35

pertaining to vigilance enquiry conducted by the

District Court Ahmedabad. The said inquiry was

relating to one Shri V.J. Vanodia Clerk working

with the District Court Ahmedabad. Thus the

information was pertaining to third party and


the third party, namely, Sri V.J. Vanodia, no

information can be supplied to respondent no. 2.

It was further observed that if the information is

pertaining to third party is ordered to be supplied

without hearing third party, third party is losing

his right to prefer first appeal under section 19 by

the RTI Act and third party is also losing a right to

prefer second appeal under section 19(4) of the

said Act and, therefore, third party ought to be

joined as party respondent, which has not been

joined by present respondent No. 2 in his first

appeal as well as in his second appeal. And

therefore, the order passed by second appellate

authority deserves to be quashed and set aside.

By observing this the High Court quashed and set

aside the order passed by CIC, State of Gujarat in

second appeal.

40. Information Commission has no authority to order refund of fees


Decided on 28-11-2007, Ahmedabad

Education Society And another, Petitioner Vs.

The Union of India (UOI) And 3 others,

Respondents- CORAM : Hon'ble J. D.N. Patel

1. This writ petition was preferred against the

order passed by the State Chief Information

Commissioner whereby the petitioners who were

not parties before the said authorities, were

directed to refund the fees under the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (For short the Act).

Against this order, third party had preferred the

petition on the ground that the petitioners were

not joined as parties in the proceedings before the

State Chief Information Commissioner and no

opportunity of being heard was given and the

direction has been given to the petitioners to

refund fees to respondent No.4, is dehors the

provisions of the Act.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held as

follows:

1) The State Chief Information Commissioner

has no power, jurisdiction and authority

under the Act to pass an order of refund of

fees, therefore, the impugned order deserves

to be quashed and set aside.

2) Though the order has been passed by the

State Chief Information Commissioner

against the petitioners, they have not been

joined as parties in the proceedings. No

notice or summonses were issued to the

petitioners. Thus, without giving an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioners,

the impugned order has been passed and

hence the said order deserves to be quashed

and set aside.

3) It ought to be kept in mind by the State Chief

Commissioner that whenever any order has

been passed against any person or

institution, the same ought to be heard. This

is a bare minimum requirement. In facts of

the present case, this bare minimum

requirement of hearing has not been

complied with and a civil dispute has been

decided by the State Chief Commissioner.

4) Whenever any applications applied

forgetting any information about third party,

such information shall be given by PIO

under section 7 of the Act, only after

following procedure prescribed under



34

section 1(1) of the Act and also keeping in

mind Section 7(7) of the Act.

5) The concerned authorities have not properly

appreciated that the petitioner was never a

party in the first appeal as well as in the

second appeal and the order has been passed

against the petitioner.

6) The order passed without giving an

opportunity of being heard, lead to

arbitrariness. Arbitrariness and equality are

sworn enemies of each other. Where

arbitrariness is present, equality is always

absent and where equality is present,


7) Holding aforesaid, the High Court quashed

and set aside the order passed by the State

Chief Commissioner.

41. Amitabh Bacchan is not a Public Authority

High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow

Bench - MISC. Bench No 8464/2007, Dated

01/01/2008, Braj Bhushan Dubey Vs. SIC,

Lucknow & 3 Ors, CORAM : Hon'ble J.

Udaikrishna Dhaon, J. Satyendra Singh

Chauhan.

In this connection petitioner had made a request

to Shri Amitabh Bacchan for certain information

under section 6 of the Right to Information Act

2005, relating to the advertisement which was

telecast in electronic channels. In that

advertisement Amhitabh Bacchan had said

something in a particular manner. The PIO did

not furnish the information within stipulated time

of 30 days and, therefore, a complaint under

section l18 of the Act was made before the State

Information Commission. After hearing both

sides the Chief Information Commission held

that the provisions of RTI Act are not applicable

to Shri Amitabh Bacchan in respect to the alleged

publication. After considering relevant

provisions under sections 2(h), 2(j) and 11 of the

Act, the High Court held that Shri Amitabh

Bacchan had merely acted in the advertisement

without accepting any payment as he was a brand

ambassador of Uttar Pradesh. He was an

honorary member of the Uttar Pradesh

Development Council and a Brand Ambassador

of State of U.P. and he has not availed any facility

attached to those posts. For the alleged

advertisement Shri Amitabh Bacchan was not

financed by the State Government directly or

indirectly. Holding this the High Court therefore,

held that the provisions of Right to Information

Act in respect to the alleged advisement are not

applicable to Amitabh Bacchan. The writ petition

filed by the petitioner was dismissed at the

admission stage.

42. Dhara Singh Girls High School is a Public Authority u/s 2(h)

High Court of Allahabad - W.P.(C) No.

4747/2008, Decided on 24-01-2008 Dhara

Singh Girls High School Petitioner Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary

(Secondary Education) U.P. Government

others, Respondents. CORAM: Hon'ble J.

Rakesh Tiwari

1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner sought

direction in the nature of mandamus commending

the respondent not to compel the petitioner's

institution to give information as sought by

respondent No. 5. The ground on which the relief



35

pertaining to vigilance enquiry conducted by the

District Court Ahmedabad. The said inquiry was

relating to one Shri V.J. Vanodia Clerk working

with the District Court Ahmedabad. Thus the

information was pertaining to third party and


the third party, namely, Sri V.J. Vanodia, no

information can be supplied to respondent no. 2.

It was further observed that if the information is

pertaining to third party is ordered to be supplied

without hearing third party, third party is losing

his right to prefer first appeal under section 19 by

the RTI Act and third party is also losing a right to

prefer second appeal under section 19(4) of the

said Act and, therefore, third party ought to be

joined as party respondent, which has not been

joined by present respondent No. 2 in his first

appeal as well as in his second appeal. And

therefore, the order passed by second appellate

authority deserves to be quashed and set aside.

By observing this the High Court quashed and set

aside the order passed by CIC, State of Gujarat in

second appeal.

40. Information Commission has no authority to order refund of fees


Decided on 28-11-2007, Ahmedabad

Education Society And another, Petitioner Vs.

The Union of India (UOI) And 3 others,

Respondents- CORAM : Hon'ble J. D.N. Patel

1. This writ petition was preferred against the

order passed by the State Chief Information

Commissioner whereby the petitioners who were

not parties before the said authorities, were

directed to refund the fees under the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (For short the Act).

Against this order, third party had preferred the

petition on the ground that the petitioners were

not joined as parties in the proceedings before the

State Chief Information Commissioner and no

opportunity of being heard was given and the

direction has been given to the petitioners to

refund fees to respondent No.4, is dehors the

provisions of the Act.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held as

follows:

1) The State Chief Information Commissioner

has no power, jurisdiction and authority

under the Act to pass an order of refund of

fees, therefore, the impugned order deserves

to be quashed and set aside.

2) Though the order has been passed by the

State Chief Information Commissioner

against the petitioners, they have not been

joined as parties in the proceedings. No

notice or summonses were issued to the

petitioners. Thus, without giving an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioners,

the impugned order has been passed and

hence the said order deserves to be quashed

and set aside.

3) It ought to be kept in mind by the State Chief

Commissioner that whenever any order has

been passed against any person or

institution, the same ought to be heard. This

is a bare minimum requirement. In facts of

the present case, this bare minimum

requirement of hearing has not been

complied with and a civil dispute has been

decided by the State Chief Commissioner.

4) Whenever any applications applied

forgetting any information about third party,

such information shall be given by PIO

under section 7 of the Act, only after

following procedure prescribed under



34

submitted by them, for being appointed as

Assistant Teachers. Since the institution in

question and the Committee Management

managing the institution is a public authority as

defined in the Act, the Assistant Teachers

working therein are also performing the duties of

imparting education to the Society. Consequently

when the Assistant Teachers are performing the

public activities the information sought by the

application is with relation to such activity and it

cannot be said that the teaching work done by the

six Assistant Teachers has no relationship to any

public activity or interest. The information sought

cannot also be brought within the meaning of

being confidential to the third party. The records

of educational certificates of the six Assistant

Teachers are available with the public authority

and have relationship to their performing their

duties as such. They were appointed by virtue of

their qualifications and hence such qualifications

have direct relationship to their duties. As such

the exemption from disclosure of information

under section 8(j) is not available in the instant

case.

3. Holding above, the Special Appeal was

allowed and the writ petition having no merits

was dismissed.

44. Appointment of State Information Commissioner u/s 15 (2)

High Court of Himachal Pradesh -

W.P.(C) No. 866/2006, Decided on 17-05-2007

Virender Kumar, Petitioner Vs. P.S. Rana And


Deepak Gupta

1. In this case the petitioner has filed writ petition

alleging that the State of Himachal Pradesh has

only appointed the Chief Information

Commissioner and, therefore, the constitution of

State Information Commission is illegal and not

in accordance with Section 15(2) of the RTI Act.

In short, the question was raised whether the State

Information Commission to be constituted under

the RTI Act, 2005 can be a single member body or

must be a multi member body. After hearing both

sides and on perusal of Sec. 15(2) of the RTI Act it

was held that the way section 15(2) of the RTI Act

has been worded leaves us in no manner of doubt

that the legislature intended and the Act provides

that the State Information Commission should be

a multi member body consisting of one State

Chief Information Commissioner and at least one

State Information Commissioner. In case the

intention of the State was otherwise, the section

could have been worded in a different manner

altogether. No doubt the State has been given the

discretion to appoint as many as State

Information Commissioners as it deem necessary,

but this number cannot be less than one and

cannot exceed ten. We are unable to accept the

contention that the State has discretion not to

appoint any State Information Commissioners.

Such an interpretation would militate against the

language of Section 15(2) which, in our opinion

clearly shows that the State Information

Commission is to be a multi member body.

Holding this the writ petition was allowed and

respondent No.2 State of Himachal Pradesh was

directed to appoint at least one State Information

Commissioner in accordance with Section

15(2(b) of the RTI Act.



37

was sought was that the petitioner is a private

institution which has been recognized by the

Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad receiving grant in

aid by the State Government does not fall within

the ambit of Section 2(g) of the RTI Act and hence

the institution cannot compel to give information

sought by respondent No.5.


relevant provisions of RTI Act, the High

Court observed that the petitioner is financed

by the State Government substantially and is

receiving grant in aid from the State

Government and, therefore, the District Basic

Education Officer has rightly sought

information from the petitioner which cannot

be denied only on the pretext that since

respondent No. 5 has filed a number of

complaints against him and there is inter

se litigations between the parties, hence the

institution is not obliged to provide

information.


whenever there is even an iota of nexus

regarding control and finance of public authority

over the activity of a private body or institution or

an organisation etc., the same would fall under

the provisions of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The

provisions of the Act have to be read in

consonance and in harmony with its objects and

reasons given in the Act which have to be given

widest meaning in order to ensure that

unscrupulous persons do not get benefits of

concealment of their illegal activities or illegal

acts by being exempted under the Act and are

able to hide nothing from the public. The working

of any such organisation or institution of any such

private body owned or under control of public

authority shall be amenable to the Right to

Information Act. The petitioner being an

institution recognised under the provisions of

U.P. High School and Intermediate Education

Act, 1929 and receiving grant in aid from the

State Government is , therefore, covered under

the RTI Act. The writ petition is accordingly

dismissed.

43. Managing Committee of Public Authority accountable

High Court of Allahabad - Special Appeal No.

766 of 2008, Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.

and others

1. The issue involved in this Special Appeal

was whether the Committee of Management of an

educational Institution or its members can be

required to give information on an application

made under the RTI Act 2005. After considering

rival submissions, the High Court held that in so

far as the Committee of Management of the

private managed institutions are concerned they

are covered under the definition of Section 2(h) of

the RTI Act being public authority as has been

held by a Division Bench of this court in the case

of Committee of Management Ismail Girls

National Inter College, Meerut Vs. State of U.P.

and others, 2008(8) A.D.J. 345. The appellant is

right in saying that the information sought by him

from the Committee Management was bound to

be given as per the provisions of RTI Act and the

District Inspector of Schools had rightly required

to Committee of Management to provide such

information to the petitioner.

2. The information sought by the appellant

relates to six Assistant Teachers of the institution

in question, and the educational certificates



36

submitted by them, for being appointed as

Assistant Teachers. Since the institution in

question and the Committee Management

managing the institution is a public authority as

defined in the Act, the Assistant Teachers

working therein are also performing the duties of

imparting education to the Society. Consequently

when the Assistant Teachers are performing the

public activities the information sought by the

application is with relation to such activity and it

cannot be said that the teaching work done by the

six Assistant Teachers has no relationship to any

public activity or interest. The information sought

cannot also be brought within the meaning of

being confidential to the third party. The records

of educational certificates of the six Assistant

Teachers are available with the public authority

and have relationship to their performing their

duties as such. They were appointed by virtue of

their qualifications and hence such qualifications

have direct relationship to their duties. As such

the exemption from disclosure of information

under section 8(j) is not available in the instant

case.

3. Holding above, the Special Appeal was

allowed and the writ petition having no merits

was dismissed.

44. Appointment of State Information Commissioner u/s 15 (2)

High Court of Himachal Pradesh -

W.P.(C) No. 866/2006, Decided on 17-05-2007

Virender Kumar, Petitioner Vs. P.S. Rana And


Deepak Gupta

1. In this case the petitioner has filed writ petition

alleging that the State of Himachal Pradesh has

only appointed the Chief Information

Commissioner and, therefore, the constitution of

State Information Commission is illegal and not

in accordance with Section 15(2) of the RTI Act.

In short, the question was raised whether the State

Information Commission to be constituted under

the RTI Act, 2005 can be a single member body or

must be a multi member body. After hearing both

sides and on perusal of Sec. 15(2) of the RTI Act it

was held that the way section 15(2) of the RTI Act

has been worded leaves us in no manner of doubt

that the legislature intended and the Act provides

that the State Information Commission should be

a multi member body consisting of one State

Chief Information Commissioner and at least one

State Information Commissioner. In case the

intention of the State was otherwise, the section

could have been worded in a different manner

altogether. No doubt the State has been given the

discretion to appoint as many as State

Information Commissioners as it deem necessary,

but this number cannot be less than one and

cannot exceed ten. We are unable to accept the

contention that the State has discretion not to

appoint any State Information Commissioners.

Such an interpretation would militate against the

language of Section 15(2) which, in our opinion

clearly shows that the State Information

Commission is to be a multi member body.

Holding this the writ petition was allowed and

respondent No.2 State of Himachal Pradesh was

directed to appoint at least one State Information

Commissioner in accordance with Section

15(2(b) of the RTI Act.



37

was sought was that the petitioner is a private

institution which has been recognized by the

Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad receiving grant in

aid by the State Government does not fall within

the ambit of Section 2(g) of the RTI Act and hence

the institution cannot compel to give information

sought by respondent No.5.


relevant provisions of RTI Act, the High

Court observed that the petitioner is financed

by the State Government substantially and is

receiving grant in aid from the State

Government and, therefore, the District Basic

Education Officer has rightly sought

information from the petitioner which cannot

be denied only on the pretext that since

respondent No. 5 has filed a number of

complaints against him and there is inter

se litigations between the parties, hence the

institution is not obliged to provide

information.


whenever there is even an iota of nexus

regarding control and finance of public authority

over the activity of a private body or institution or

an organisation etc., the same would fall under

the provisions of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The

provisions of the Act have to be read in

consonance and in harmony with its objects and

reasons given in the Act which have to be given

widest meaning in order to ensure that

unscrupulous persons do not get benefits of

concealment of their illegal activities or illegal

acts by being exempted under the Act and are

able to hide nothing from the public. The working

of any such organisation or institution of any such

private body owned or under control of public

authority shall be amenable to the Right to

Information Act. The petitioner being an

institution recognised under the provisions of

U.P. High School and Intermediate Education

Act, 1929 and receiving grant in aid from the

State Government is , therefore, covered under

the RTI Act. The writ petition is accordingly

dismissed.

43. Managing Committee of Public Authority accountable

High Court of Allahabad - Special Appeal No.

766 of 2008, Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.

and others

1. The issue involved in this Special Appeal

was whether the Committee of Management of an

educational Institution or its members can be

required to give information on an application

made under the RTI Act 2005. After considering

rival submissions, the High Court held that in so

far as the Committee of Management of the

private managed institutions are concerned they

are covered under the definition of Section 2(h) of

the RTI Act being public authority as has been

held by a Division Bench of this court in the case

of Committee of Management Ismail Girls

National Inter College, Meerut Vs. State of U.P.

and others, 2008(8) A.D.J. 345. The appellant is

right in saying that the information sought by him

from the Committee Management was bound to

be given as per the provisions of RTI Act and the

District Inspector of Schools had rightly required

to Committee of Management to provide such

information to the petitioner.

2. The information sought by the appellant

relates to six Assistant Teachers of the institution

in question, and the educational certificates



36

be denied the information. It was further held that

the Proviso (2) Section 8 (1) (j) applies only to

section 8 (1) (j) and not to the other Sub-sections

of that section. It was also observed that the

confidentiality required to be maintained of the

medical record of a patient including a convict

considering the regulation framed by the medical

council of India cannot override the provisions of

the Right to Information Act. If there be

inconsistency between the regulations and the

Right to Information Act, the provisions of the

Act would prevail over the regulations and the

information will have to be made available in

terms of the Act. The Act however, carves out

some exceptions including the release of the

personal information, the disclosure of which has

no relationship to any public activity or interest or

which would cause unwarranted invasion of the

right to privacy. In such cases discretion has been

conferred on the concerned Public Information

Officer to make available the information. If

satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the

disclosure. This discretion must be exercised,

bearing in mind the facts of each case and the

larger public interest. Normally records of a

person sentenced or convicted or remanded to

police or judicial custody, if during that period

such person is admitted in Hospital and Nursing

Home, should be made available to the person

asking the information provided such hospital

nursing home is maintained by the State or Public

Authority or any other Public Body. It is only in

rare and in exceptional cases and for good and

valid reasons recorded in writing can the

information may be denied.

While commencing upon the scheme of the Act it

was observed that in so far as the Public

Information Officer is concerned, before giving

any information an opportunity has to be given to

the third party as can be seen from Section 11 of

the Act. Section 19 (2) which provides for an

appeal against an order by a person aggrieved to

disclose third party information. The right of

appeal is also conferred under Section 19 (4). In

such cases, the section requires that the third party

should be given a reasonable opportunity. It,

therefore, appears that before any order is passed

a third party has to be given notice in order that he

may be heard. The question is whether this

provision is purely procedural and failure to give

notice would not render the decision illegal. The

section itself contemplates that before giving

information the third party has to be given an

opportunity. It will therefore, be difficult to accept

the contention that this is merely a procedural

requirement and that the party would not

prejudice. Normally the information sought about

medical records of a convict and the like must be

made available, yet it is possible that in a given

case, a party may give sufficient reasons as to why

the information should not be revealed. But the

right of hearing is not an empty formality. If the

petitioner did not get a hearing before the

appellate authority, it cannot be argued that the

same can be cured by the petitioner getting an

opportunity before this Court.

Holding the above, the High Court held that the

failure by the respondent to give an opportunity to

the petitioner the impugned order will have to be

set aside and the matter remanded back to

respondent No. 2 to give an opportunity to the

petitioner.



39

45. Penalty for delay in providing information

High Court of Bombay - W.P. (C) No. 1869 of

2008, Dated : 24-03- 2008 - Mr. Amar Maruti

Salunkhe, Petitioner & Others Vs. SIC,

respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble J. N. Patel &

S. S. Shinde


order passed by the respondent No. 1 imposing

fine of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner and the

Tahsildar with the direction to deduct from the

salary payable in the month of March 2008. The

petitioners were working under the Tahsildar. It

was the case of the petitioners that fault does not

lie upon them but on the Tahsildar who has in

terms stated and accepted the fact that there was a

mistake on the part of the office of the Tahsildar.

The respondent No. 1 had examined the matter in

detail before fixing the liability. Even on review

he found that the decision taken by him was not

wrong. Considering these facts the High Court

held that the petitioner officers are trying to pass

on blames to each other and they are equally

liable for non supply of information to the citizen

within the stipulated period and for their lapses,

the impugned order imposing a fine of Rs.

25,000/- is justified. The petition was dismissed

accordingly.

46. Fiduciary Relationship

High Court of Bombay - W.P.(C) 1750/2007,

Dated 23-03-2007, Mr. Surupsingh Hrya Naik,

Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra, Respondents,

through Additional Secretary, General

Administration Department. CORAM: Hon'ble

J. F. I. Rebello

In this case the petitioner was a member of the

Legislative Assembly of the State of

Maharashtra. Contempt proceedings had been

initiated against him by the Hon'ble High Court,

which imposed on him imprisonment of one th

month by Judgment dated 10 May 2006. The thpetitioner on 12 May 2006 surrendered to the

police authority in Mumbai and was taken in thcustody. On 14 May 2006 he was shifted to Sir

J.J. Hospital, Mumbai on account of suspected

heart problems and blood sugar and Blood

pressure. He underwent medical treatment for the th

period of 21 days and was discharged on 5 June,

2006. He served the remaining tenure of th

imprisonment till 11 June 2006 in jail on which

day he was released from custody on completing

the period of sentence. Respondent No. 5 who

was a private citizen had applied to the Public

Information Officer of Sir J.J. Hospital Byculla

Mumbai for the supply of copies of the medical

reports of the petitioner. It was mentioned in the

application that it was in public interest to know

why a convict is allowed to stay in an air-

condition comfort of the hospital. The PIO did not

supply the necessary information and ultimately

the matter was taken to the High Court, Mumbai.

After considering the relevant provisions of the

Right to Information Act 2005 and after hearing

both the sides, the Hon'ble High Court came to the

conclusion that the regulations framed under the

Indian Medical Council Act, will have to be read

with Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information

Act. So read it is within the competence of the

concerned public information officer to disclose

the information in larger public interest or

whether parliament or State Legislature could not



38

be denied the information. It was further held that

the Proviso (2) Section 8 (1) (j) applies only to

section 8 (1) (j) and not to the other Sub-sections

of that section. It was also observed that the

confidentiality required to be maintained of the

medical record of a patient including a convict

considering the regulation framed by the medical

council of India cannot override the provisions of

the Right to Information Act. If there be

inconsistency between the regulations and the

Right to Information Act, the provisions of the

Act would prevail over the regulations and the

information will have to be made available in

terms of the Act. The Act however, carves out

some exceptions including the release of the

personal information, the disclosure of which has

no relationship to any public activity or interest or

which would cause unwarranted invasion of the

right to privacy. In such cases discretion has been

conferred on the concerned Public Information

Officer to make available the information. If

satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the

disclosure. This discretion must be exercised,

bearing in mind the facts of each case and the

larger public interest. Normally records of a

person sentenced or convicted or remanded to

police or judicial custody, if during that period

such person is admitted in Hospital and Nursing

Home, should be made available to the person

asking the information provided such hospital

nursing home is maintained by the State or Public

Authority or any other Public Body. It is only in

rare and in exceptional cases and for good and

valid reasons recorded in writing can the

information may be denied.

While commencing upon the scheme of the Act it

was observed that in so far as the Public

Information Officer is concerned, before giving

any information an opportunity has to be given to

the third party as can be seen from Section 11 of

the Act. Section 19 (2) which provides for an

appeal against an order by a person aggrieved to

disclose third party information. The right of

appeal is also conferred under Section 19 (4). In

such cases, the section requires that the third party

should be given a reasonable opportunity. It,

therefore, appears that before any order is passed

a third party has to be given notice in order that he

may be heard. The question is whether this

provision is purely procedural and failure to give

notice would not render the decision illegal. The

section itself contemplates that before giving

information the third party has to be given an

opportunity. It will therefore, be difficult to accept

the contention that this is merely a procedural

requirement and that the party would not

prejudice. Normally the information sought about

medical records of a convict and the like must be

made available, yet it is possible that in a given

case, a party may give sufficient reasons as to why

the information should not be revealed. But the

right of hearing is not an empty formality. If the

petitioner did not get a hearing before the

appellate authority, it cannot be argued that the

same can be cured by the petitioner getting an

opportunity before this Court.

Holding the above, the High Court held that the

failure by the respondent to give an opportunity to

the petitioner the impugned order will have to be

set aside and the matter remanded back to

respondent No. 2 to give an opportunity to the

petitioner.



39

45. Penalty for delay in providing information

High Court of Bombay - W.P. (C) No. 1869 of

2008, Dated : 24-03- 2008 - Mr. Amar Maruti

Salunkhe, Petitioner & Others Vs. SIC,

respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble J. N. Patel &

S. S. Shinde


order passed by the respondent No. 1 imposing

fine of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner and the

Tahsildar with the direction to deduct from the

salary payable in the month of March 2008. The

petitioners were working under the Tahsildar. It

was the case of the petitioners that fault does not

lie upon them but on the Tahsildar who has in

terms stated and accepted the fact that there was a

mistake on the part of the office of the Tahsildar.

The respondent No. 1 had examined the matter in

detail before fixing the liability. Even on review

he found that the decision taken by him was not

wrong. Considering these facts the High Court

held that the petitioner officers are trying to pass

on blames to each other and they are equally

liable for non supply of information to the citizen

within the stipulated period and for their lapses,

the impugned order imposing a fine of Rs.

25,000/- is justified. The petition was dismissed

accordingly.

46. Fiduciary Relationship

High Court of Bombay - W.P.(C) 1750/2007,

Dated 23-03-2007, Mr. Surupsingh Hrya Naik,

Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra, Respondents,

through Additional Secretary, General

Administration Department. CORAM: Hon'ble

J. F. I. Rebello

In this case the petitioner was a member of the

Legislative Assembly of the State of

Maharashtra. Contempt proceedings had been

initiated against him by the Hon'ble High Court,

which imposed on him imprisonment of one th

month by Judgment dated 10 May 2006. The thpetitioner on 12 May 2006 surrendered to the

police authority in Mumbai and was taken in thcustody. On 14 May 2006 he was shifted to Sir

J.J. Hospital, Mumbai on account of suspected

heart problems and blood sugar and Blood

pressure. He underwent medical treatment for the th

period of 21 days and was discharged on 5 June,

2006. He served the remaining tenure of th

imprisonment till 11 June 2006 in jail on which

day he was released from custody on completing

the period of sentence. Respondent No. 5 who

was a private citizen had applied to the Public

Information Officer of Sir J.J. Hospital Byculla

Mumbai for the supply of copies of the medical

reports of the petitioner. It was mentioned in the

application that it was in public interest to know

why a convict is allowed to stay in an air-

condition comfort of the hospital. The PIO did not

supply the necessary information and ultimately

the matter was taken to the High Court, Mumbai.

After considering the relevant provisions of the

Right to Information Act 2005 and after hearing

both the sides, the Hon'ble High Court came to the

conclusion that the regulations framed under the

Indian Medical Council Act, will have to be read

with Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information

Act. So read it is within the competence of the

concerned public information officer to disclose

the information in larger public interest or

whether parliament or State Legislature could not



38

petitioner. It was not even the case of the

respondent No. 2 that otherwise i.e. through

proper channel or by direct delivery thereof, the

application and/or the order to supply

information were made available and brought to

the notice of petitioner herein, yet he has failed to

comply. Unless and until it is borne on record that

any officer against whom order of penalty for

failure is sought to be levied and had occasion to

comply with the order and has no explanation or

excuse available worth satisfying the forum

possess the knowledge of the order to supply

information, an order of penalty cannot be levied.

In the present case the order of penalty is based on

assumption that the petitioner is supposed to have

known. No such fiction is created by law nor on

facts it is held that the defence is fake. In this

premise, the order of penalty is unjust and

deserves to be set aside being unsupported by law.

Holding this the High Court set aside the

impugned order.

49. Penalty should be for defaulting PIO

High Court of Mumbai Bench at Goa - Writ

Petition No. 435 of 2007, Decided on 12-03-

2009, 1. Pushpalata Arlekar, Dy. Director of

Administration, PWD, Panaji-Goa 2. A.M.

Wachasunder, Principal Chief Engineer,

PWD, Altinho, Panji-Goa, Petitioners Vs. Goa

State Information Commission & others --

Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble J. N. A.

Britto

1. This writ petition was directed against the

order passed by Goa State Information

Commission by which penalty of Rs. 10,000/-

was imposed on petitioner No.1. It was not in

dispute that at the relevant time the public

information officer in the office of the Principal

Chief Engineer, PWD was the Superintending

Engineer. Respondent No. 2 sought certain

information from the said public information

officer viz. Superintending Engineer. The

application was marked to the petitioner No.1. As

respondent No.2 did not obtain any information

within stipulated period he proceeded to file an

appeal. It was after filing appeal the petitioner

No.1 was designated as Public Information

Officer and Superintending Surveyor of work

was designated as first appellate authority. In

view of this the High Court held that it is the

Superintending Engineer of PWD who was the

public information officer should have been

penalized for not providing the information

sought by respondent No.2 and not the petitioner

No.1. The petitioner No.1 was acting only as his

subordinate in his other official capacity and

could not have been penalized for not performing

the duties imposed upon a public information

officer under the RTI Act. Holding this the

impugned order imposing penalty on petitioner

No.1 was set aside.

50. Personal records of public servant - Privacy

High Court of Mumbai Bench at Goa - W.P.(C)

No. 1/2009- Decided on 09-01-2009- Kashinath

J. Shetye--Petitioner Vs. Public Information

Officer and others--Respondents. CORAM:

Hon'ble J. C.L. Pangarkar

1. The facts in this case were the petitioner was

working as a Junior Engineer in Electricity

Department. Respondent No.4, a citizen applied

to PIO to supply the information in respect of the

petitioner regarding different types of leave taken



41

47. Definition of Information u/s 2 (f) cannot include within its fold answers to the question why reasoning and justification.

High Court of Bombay, Bench at Goa -

W.P.(C) No. 419/2007, Decided on 03-04-2008

Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,

Petitioner Vs. The Goa State Information

Through the State Chief Information

Commission and Another, Respondents.

CORAM : Hon'ble J. S. A. Bobde

1. In this case the writ petitioner was Public

Information Officer and she had challenged the

order passed by the Goa Information

Commission holding her responsible for

furnishing incorrect, incomplete or misleading

information to the respondent No. 2 and also for

providing false information. After hearing both

sides and on perusal of provisions under section

2(f) of the RTI Act, the High Court observed that

the definition of information cannot include

within its fold answers to the question why which

would be the same thing as asking the reason for a

justification for a particular thing. The Public

Information Authorities cannot expect to

communicate the citizen the reason why a certain

thing was done or not done in the sense of a

justification because the citizen makes a

requisition about information. Justifications are

matter within the domain of adjudicating

authorities and cannot properly be classified as

information.

2. In view of the matter the order of the

commission appears to suffer from a serious error

of law apparent on record and results in the

miscarriage of justice. Accordingly the impugned

order is set aside.

48. Penalty order has to be justified.

High Court of Mumbai Bench at Goa -

Writ Petition No. 205 of 2007, Decided on 17-

09-2009, A. A. Parulekar, Superintending

Engineer II, Public Works Department,

Altinho, Panaji, Goa Petitioner Vs 1. Goa State

Information Commission Through Shri A.

Venkataratnam, State Chief Information

Commissioner, Ground Floor, Shram Shakti

Bhavan, Patto, Panji, Goa- 2. Shri Sushant S.

Naik, H. No.103, Costi, Kalay, Sanguem ,Goa-

Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble J. A.H. Joshi

1. In this case respondent No.2 had filed

application for information under the RTI Act

2005. Since the information was not supplied,

respondent No.2 carried an appeal. It seems that

direction was given to supply information as per

appeal order. In spite of that information was not

supplied and hence the State Information

Commissioner issued show-cause-notice.

Petitioner was the person to whom the application

was furnished. In response to the notice issued by

the State Information Commission the petitioner

explained that the application filed by respondent

No. 2 was not forwarded to him and he was not

aware of the said application. He submitted that

he cannot be blamed for failure to supply the

information within time. However, the State

Information Commission found him guilty and

levied upon him penalty of Rs. 250/- per day for

67 days, however, commuted it to Rs. 5000/-.

Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed

present writ petition. On perusal of record and on

perusal of the impugned order passed by the State

Information Commission, the High Court

observed that the application for information

filed by respondent No. 2 never reached the



40

petitioner. It was not even the case of the

respondent No. 2 that otherwise i.e. through

proper channel or by direct delivery thereof, the

application and/or the order to supply

information were made available and brought to

the notice of petitioner herein, yet he has failed to

comply. Unless and until it is borne on record that

any officer against whom order of penalty for

failure is sought to be levied and had occasion to

comply with the order and has no explanation or

excuse available worth satisfying the forum

possess the knowledge of the order to supply

information, an order of penalty cannot be levied.

In the present case the order of penalty is based on

assumption that the petitioner is supposed to have

known. No such fiction is created by law nor on

facts it is held that the defence is fake. In this

premise, the order of penalty is unjust and

deserves to be set aside being unsupported by law.

Holding this the High Court set aside the

impugned order.

49. Penalty should be for defaulting PIO

High Court of Mumbai Bench at Goa - Writ

Petition No. 435 of 2007, Decided on 12-03-

2009, 1. Pushpalata Arlekar, Dy. Director of

Administration, PWD, Panaji-Goa 2. A.M.

Wachasunder, Principal Chief Engineer,

PWD, Altinho, Panji-Goa, Petitioners Vs. Goa

State Information Commission & others --

Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble J. N. A.

Britto

1. This writ petition was directed against the

order passed by Goa State Information

Commission by which penalty of Rs. 10,000/-

was imposed on petitioner No.1. It was not in

dispute that at the relevant time the public

information officer in the office of the Principal

Chief Engineer, PWD was the Superintending

Engineer. Respondent No. 2 sought certain

information from the said public information

officer viz. Superintending Engineer. The

application was marked to the petitioner No.1. As

respondent No.2 did not obtain any information

within stipulated period he proceeded to file an

appeal. It was after filing appeal the petitioner

No.1 was designated as Public Information

Officer and Superintending Surveyor of work

was designated as first appellate authority. In

view of this the High Court held that it is the

Superintending Engineer of PWD who was the

public information officer should have been

penalized for not providing the information

sought by respondent No.2 and not the petitioner

No.1. The petitioner No.1 was acting only as his

subordinate in his other official capacity and

could not have been penalized for not performing

the duties imposed upon a public information

officer under the RTI Act. Holding this the

impugned order imposing penalty on petitioner

No.1 was set aside.

50. Personal records of public servant - Privacy

High Court of Mumbai Bench at Goa - W.P.(C)

No. 1/2009- Decided on 09-01-2009- Kashinath

J. Shetye--Petitioner Vs. Public Information

Officer and others--Respondents. CORAM:

Hon'ble J. C.L. Pangarkar

1. The facts in this case were the petitioner was

working as a Junior Engineer in Electricity

Department. Respondent No.4, a citizen applied

to PIO to supply the information in respect of the

petitioner regarding different types of leave taken



41

47. Definition of Information u/s 2 (f) cannot include within its fold answers to the question why reasoning and justification.

High Court of Bombay, Bench at Goa -

W.P.(C) No. 419/2007, Decided on 03-04-2008

Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,

Petitioner Vs. The Goa State Information

Through the State Chief Information

Commission and Another, Respondents.

CORAM : Hon'ble J. S. A. Bobde

1. In this case the writ petitioner was Public

Information Officer and she had challenged the

order passed by the Goa Information

Commission holding her responsible for

furnishing incorrect, incomplete or misleading

information to the respondent No. 2 and also for

providing false information. After hearing both

sides and on perusal of provisions under section

2(f) of the RTI Act, the High Court observed that

the definition of information cannot include

within its fold answers to the question why which

would be the same thing as asking the reason for a

justification for a particular thing. The Public

Information Authorities cannot expect to

communicate the citizen the reason why a certain

thing was done or not done in the sense of a

justification because the citizen makes a

requisition about information. Justifications are

matter within the domain of adjudicating

authorities and cannot properly be classified as

information.

2. In view of the matter the order of the

commission appears to suffer from a serious error

of law apparent on record and results in the

miscarriage of justice. Accordingly the impugned

order is set aside.

48. Penalty order has to be justified.

High Court of Mumbai Bench at Goa -

Writ Petition No. 205 of 2007, Decided on 17-

09-2009, A. A. Parulekar, Superintending

Engineer II, Public Works Department,

Altinho, Panaji, Goa Petitioner Vs 1. Goa State

Information Commission Through Shri A.

Venkataratnam, State Chief Information

Commissioner, Ground Floor, Shram Shakti

Bhavan, Patto, Panji, Goa- 2. Shri Sushant S.

Naik, H. No.103, Costi, Kalay, Sanguem ,Goa-

Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble J. A.H. Joshi

1. In this case respondent No.2 had filed

application for information under the RTI Act

2005. Since the information was not supplied,

respondent No.2 carried an appeal. It seems that

direction was given to supply information as per

appeal order. In spite of that information was not

supplied and hence the State Information

Commissioner issued show-cause-notice.

Petitioner was the person to whom the application

was furnished. In response to the notice issued by

the State Information Commission the petitioner

explained that the application filed by respondent

No. 2 was not forwarded to him and he was not

aware of the said application. He submitted that

he cannot be blamed for failure to supply the

information within time. However, the State

Information Commission found him guilty and

levied upon him penalty of Rs. 250/- per day for

67 days, however, commuted it to Rs. 5000/-.

Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed

present writ petition. On perusal of record and on

perusal of the impugned order passed by the State

Information Commission, the High Court

observed that the application for information

filed by respondent No. 2 never reached the



40

indirect control over the affairs of the Bank for

deep and pervasive control on the basis of which

it can be said that the petitioner Bank is State or a

public authority. In view of these facts

and legal position it must be held that the

petitioner Bank is not a public authority within

the meaning of Sec. 2 (h) of the RTI Act.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed and

impugned order passed by the State Information

Commissioner was set aside and, therefore,

implicitly execluded from the RTI Act, the

contention too cannot be accepted. The mere fact

that the statement of objects of, or the long title to

the RTI Act mentions that it is a practical regime

of the right to information for citizens, would not

mean that a cribbed interpretation has to be placed

on its provision on the same notion of implicit








52. Revenue intelligence must make available the information relating to the quantum of reward

High Court at Calcutta- W.P. No. 121 of 2009,

Dated: 30-07-2009, Basudeb Batabyal,


Commission and ors, Respondents; W.P. No.

310 of 2009, The commissioner of customs

(Port), Petitioner Vs. The Information

Commissioner, Central Information

Commission & Ors., Respondents CORAM :

J. Sanjib Banerjee

Two petitions have been filed by the individuals

affected by the order passed by the Central

Information Commission and by the Customs

Department. Respondent No. 2 had made a

request to the commissioner of customs seeking

information on the quantum of reward paid to the

petitioner while such petitioner was posted at the

Special Investigation Branch of the Customs in

Calcutta.Respondent No. 2 also sought

information along with the corresponding file/

case numbers. The request was declined by the

Central Public Information Officer on his opinion

that the information requested was exempted

from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j)

of the said Act of 2005. The petitioner preferred

an appeal which was dismissed. Second appeal

was carried by the respondent No. 2 before the

Central Information Commission. However the

Commission did not distinguish the two requests

made by the petitioner, the first being the quantum

of reward and the second being the furnishing of

corresponding files/case Nos. Feeling aggrieved

the petitioner filed writ petition before the High

Court. After hearing both sides the High Court

held that as to the quantum of reward the

reasoning contained in the commission's order

would justify the disclosure thereof. The

commission held that barring disclosure of

information relating to the compensation or

reward for outstanding work received by an

officer serving a public authority would amount

to negating the effect of the said Act of 2005. It

seems that the second request was not insisted

upon by the petitioner since he was specified only

information relating to quantum of the reward.

The High Court therefore, directed that the

revenue intelligence must make available the

information relating to the quantum of reward for

the period that the petitioner served in the special

investigation branch with the customs in

Calcutta.



43

by the petitioner. The PIO refused to supply the

information on the ground that the department is

exempted from supplying the information as it

falls under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of Right to

Information Act. The respondent preferred an

appeal which was dismissed. Second appeal was

preferred before the Goa Information

Commissioner who allowed the appeal with the

direction that information to be supplied as

sought. The petitioner filed present writ petition.

After hearing both sides, the High Court came to

the conclusion that when a member of a public

demands information as to how many leaves were

availed by the public servant, such information

though personal, has to be supplied and there is no

question of privacy at all. Such supply of

information, at the most may disclose how

sincere or insincere the public servant is in

discharge of his duty and the public has a right to

know. It was further observed by the High Court

that what cannot be supplied is a medical record

maintained by the family physician or a private

hospital. To that extent it is his right of privacy. It

certainly, cannot be invaded. The application for

leave is not a medical record at all. It is, at the

most, may contain ground on which leave was

sought. In the circumstances, the Commissioner

has not committed any error in directing such

information to be supplied. With this the writ


51. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh, Urban Co-oprative Bank Ltd. Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. is not a Public Authority

High Court of Mumbai at Nagpur-

W.P.No.5666 of 2007, Decided on 13-01-2009,

Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh, Urban Co-oprative

Bank Ltd. Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Irwin Chowk, Amaravati, Managing Director,

P e t i t i o n e r V s . S t a t e I n f o r m a t i o n

Commissioner, Nagpur, Respondent

In this case the petitioner is Urban Co-operative

Bank Ltd. Under the Maharashtra Cooperative

Societies Act, 1960 and is controlled in respect of

certain matters by the Reserve Bank of India

under section 10-A of the Societies Act and

certain provisions of Banking Regulations Act.

The respondent No. 3 is a share-holder of the

petitioner Bank. He made two applications before

the Bank seeking certain information under the

provisions of RTI Act. Both applications were

rejected by the petitioner contending that the Act

is not applicable to them. The respondent No. 3

preferred two appeals before the Commissioner

of Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative

Societies but both the Appeals were

dismissed. The respondent No. 3 preferred

second appeals before the Commissioner of State

Information, Vidharbha Region. The appeal were

allowed, the petitioner Bank was directed to

supply information within 30 days. Aggrieved by

this order the petitioner Bank filed present

petition contending inter alia that the Bank is not a

public authority within the meaning of section

2(h) of the Act. After hearing both sides and on

perusal of provisions u/s 2 of the Act, the High

Court held that the share capital of the petitioner

Bank was not provided by the Government nor it

is getting any financial assistance from the

Government. Director of petitioner bank is

appointed by the Government nor the

Government has any direct control or

interference in functioning and managing of the

Bank. There are number of co-operative

bank societies in Maharashtra State and they are

registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative

Societies Act. Admittedly the petitioner Bank

does not have any monopoly in the direct or



42

indirect control over the affairs of the Bank for

deep and pervasive control on the basis of which

it can be said that the petitioner Bank is State or a

public authority. In view of these facts

and legal position it must be held that the

petitioner Bank is not a public authority within

the meaning of Sec. 2 (h) of the RTI Act.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed and

impugned order passed by the State Information

Commissioner was set aside and, therefore,

implicitly execluded from the RTI Act, the

contention too cannot be accepted. The mere fact

that the statement of objects of, or the long title to

the RTI Act mentions that it is a practical regime

of the right to information for citizens, would not

mean that a cribbed interpretation has to be placed

on its provision on the same notion of implicit








52. Revenue intelligence must make available the information relating to the quantum of reward

High Court at Calcutta- W.P. No. 121 of 2009,

Dated: 30-07-2009, Basudeb Batabyal,


Commission and ors, Respondents; W.P. No.

310 of 2009, The commissioner of customs

(Port), Petitioner Vs. The Information

Commissioner, Central Information

Commission & Ors., Respondents CORAM :

J. Sanjib Banerjee

Two petitions have been filed by the individuals

affected by the order passed by the Central

Information Commission and by the Customs

Department. Respondent No. 2 had made a

request to the commissioner of customs seeking

information on the quantum of reward paid to the

petitioner while such petitioner was posted at the

Special Investigation Branch of the Customs in

Calcutta.Respondent No. 2 also sought

information along with the corresponding file/

case numbers. The request was declined by the

Central Public Information Officer on his opinion

that the information requested was exempted

from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j)

of the said Act of 2005. The petitioner preferred

an appeal which was dismissed. Second appeal

was carried by the respondent No. 2 before the

Central Information Commission. However the

Commission did not distinguish the two requests

made by the petitioner, the first being the quantum

of reward and the second being the furnishing of

corresponding files/case Nos. Feeling aggrieved

the petitioner filed writ petition before the High

Court. After hearing both sides the High Court

held that as to the quantum of reward the

reasoning contained in the commission's order

would justify the disclosure thereof. The

commission held that barring disclosure of

information relating to the compensation or

reward for outstanding work received by an

officer serving a public authority would amount

to negating the effect of the said Act of 2005. It

seems that the second request was not insisted

upon by the petitioner since he was specified only

information relating to quantum of the reward.

The High Court therefore, directed that the

revenue intelligence must make available the

information relating to the quantum of reward for

the period that the petitioner served in the special

investigation branch with the customs in

Calcutta.



43

by the petitioner. The PIO refused to supply the

information on the ground that the department is

exempted from supplying the information as it

falls under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of Right to

Information Act. The respondent preferred an

appeal which was dismissed. Second appeal was

preferred before the Goa Information

Commissioner who allowed the appeal with the

direction that information to be supplied as

sought. The petitioner filed present writ petition.

After hearing both sides, the High Court came to

the conclusion that when a member of a public

demands information as to how many leaves were

availed by the public servant, such information

though personal, has to be supplied and there is no

question of privacy at all. Such supply of

information, at the most may disclose how

sincere or insincere the public servant is in

discharge of his duty and the public has a right to

know. It was further observed by the High Court

that what cannot be supplied is a medical record

maintained by the family physician or a private

hospital. To that extent it is his right of privacy. It

certainly, cannot be invaded. The application for

leave is not a medical record at all. It is, at the

most, may contain ground on which leave was

sought. In the circumstances, the Commissioner

has not committed any error in directing such

information to be supplied. With this the writ


51. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh, Urban Co-oprative Bank Ltd. Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. is not a Public Authority

High Court of Mumbai at Nagpur-

W.P.No.5666 of 2007, Decided on 13-01-2009,

Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh, Urban Co-oprative

Bank Ltd. Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Irwin Chowk, Amaravati, Managing Director,

P e t i t i o n e r V s . S t a t e I n f o r m a t i o n

Commissioner, Nagpur, Respondent

In this case the petitioner is Urban Co-operative

Bank Ltd. Under the Maharashtra Cooperative

Societies Act, 1960 and is controlled in respect of

certain matters by the Reserve Bank of India

under section 10-A of the Societies Act and

certain provisions of Banking Regulations Act.

The respondent No. 3 is a share-holder of the

petitioner Bank. He made two applications before

the Bank seeking certain information under the

provisions of RTI Act. Both applications were

rejected by the petitioner contending that the Act

is not applicable to them. The respondent No. 3

preferred two appeals before the Commissioner

of Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative

Societies but both the Appeals were

dismissed. The respondent No. 3 preferred

second appeals before the Commissioner of State

Information, Vidharbha Region. The appeal were

allowed, the petitioner Bank was directed to

supply information within 30 days. Aggrieved by

this order the petitioner Bank filed present

petition contending inter alia that the Bank is not a

public authority within the meaning of section

2(h) of the Act. After hearing both sides and on

perusal of provisions u/s 2 of the Act, the High

Court held that the share capital of the petitioner

Bank was not provided by the Government nor it

is getting any financial assistance from the

Government. Director of petitioner bank is

appointed by the Government nor the

Government has any direct control or

interference in functioning and managing of the

Bank. There are number of co-operative

bank societies in Maharashtra State and they are

registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative

Societies Act. Admittedly the petitioner Bank

does not have any monopoly in the direct or



42

provisions of the RTI Act. According to him, a

person, who makes an application cannot be

required to be specific much less to disclose the

purpose for which he needs the information. This

contention was raised by the petitioner on the

background of various requests made by

respondent to furnish the copies of e-mails. After

hearing both sides and on perusal of provisions of

Section 6 of the RTI Act, the High Court observed

that the distinction between the information on

one hand and the reasons for existence or non-

existence of a particular state of affairs on the

other hand, needs to be noticed. The Right of

Information Act has comprehensively defined the

word “information”. It takes in its fold, large

variety of sources of information, including

documents, e-mails, opinions, press release,

models, data material etc. The common feature

of various categories, mentioned in the definition

is that they exist in one form or the other and the

PIO has only to furnish the same, by way of a

copy or description. In contrast the reason or basis

as to why a particular state of affairs exists or does

not exist cannot be treated as a source, or item of

information. The petitioner had made reference

only to the e-mails, so that, they can verify

whether anything can be done at their level, in the

context of furnishing of information. The

petitioner firmly refused to accede to the request

and insisted that he is not under obligation to

reveal the same. In fact, he claimed

confidentiality, in relation to the e-mails. It was

further observed by the High Court that the efforts

of the petitioner appear to have been directed

mostly in relation to the reasons in support of an

administrative action or inaction and that too

without specifying the actual grievance, much

less, the authority, who was supposed to take a

decision. It is well nigh impossible for any one to

accede to the request of the petitioner within the

scope of the Act and Rules.

55. Overriding effect of section 22 of RTI Act

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad -

W.P.No. 16717/2008 , Decided on 04-12-2008

The Public Information Officer/ Joint

Secretary to Chief Commissioner of Land,

Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad and

another, Petitioner Vs. A.P. Information

Commissioner, (under Right to Information

Act, 2005) Rep by its Chief Information

Commission, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad and

other Respondents, CORAM : Hon'ble J.

V.V.S. Rao

1. An important question involved in this writ

petition was whether denial of certified copy of

Muntakhab to a person on the ground that he/she

is not a legal heir of Muntakhab holder is justified

under the provisions of Right to Information Act,

2005. The second respondent had filed an

application before the first respondent requesting

for a copy of Muntakhab under RTI Act. The first

petitioner refused to give certified copy on the

ground that her name does not figure in nor she

produced legal heir certificate issued by

competent civil court. The first petitioner also

opined that Muntakhab is personal in nature, that

it has no bearing of public interest and it need not

be disclosed. The Second respondent preferred

appeal before second petitioner which was

rejected on the ground that Muntakhab is not a

public document. The respondent then preferred

second appeal before A.P. Information

Commission which was allowed and CIC

directed petitioners to furnish copy of Muntakhab

to second respondent. It is against this order the

petitioners filed writ petition.



45


High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad

- W.P. No. 4109/2008, Dated : 29-02-2008- Md.

Shafiquzzaman, IAS, S/o Late Md.

Zafirulzaman, Petitioner Vs. A.P. Information

Commission, Respondents. by its Chief

Information Commissioner, HAACA Bhavan,

Hyderabad and three others Respondents.

CORAM : Hon. J. N. V. Ramana.

In this case the petitioner was an IAS Officer. He

filed an application before Government under

RTI Act requesting to furnish the list of all such

IAS officers against whom the Anti Corruption

Bureau conducted enquiries and recommended

departmental action/prosecution and the cases in

which the Government did not accept the

recommendations of the Anti Corruption Bureau

and dropped further action. Since the petitioner

was not furnished with relevant information

within stipulated time, he approached CIC under

section 18 of the RTI Act. While the matter was

pending before CIC the Secretary to Government

passed order stating that information as sought

for by the petitioner cannot be furnished as the

same is exempted under section 8(1)(h) and

8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. After considering all facts

the CIC directed the PIO and the Appellate

Authority to furnish the information as sought by

the petitioner within 30 days. Despite receiving

said order the respondent failed to furnish the

information and therefore, the petitioner was

constrained to file writ petition. During the

pendency of writ petition also the concerned

officers did not furnish the information in spite of

sufficient time granted by the High Court and in

spite of agreeing to furnishing the information.

Ultimately the writ petition was allowed with the

observation that lethargic attitude of the officers

concerned and the manner in which the

Government is procrastinating the matter in

providing the information as sought for by the

petitioner despite the orders of the Chief

Information Commission, the apex body under

the Act, dealing with the grievance of the Public,

in securing information from the Government

departments, gives rise to strong suspicion that

the Government is disinclined to furnish the

information as sought for by the petitioner in the

larger public interest. This conduct of the

Government in not furnishing the information

that too on the directions of the Chief Information

Commission runs contrary to the provisions of

the Act which was enacted to bring about

transparency in the working of the Government.

Accordingly the Government was directed to

furnish the information as sought for by the

petitioner within a period of two weeks.

54. Disclose the purpose of Information


W.P. No. 20182 of 2008, Dated : 27-01- 2009,

Divakar S. Natarajan, Petitioner Vs. State

Information Commissioner, A. P. State and

others, Respondents Hon'ble J. L. Narsimha

Reddy.

In this case the petitioner had submitted an

application to the third respondent seeking

information under RTI Act. In his application he

had referred to his e-mails to the then Chief

Secretary the third respondent issued reply by

furnishing copy of Rules framed under RTI Act.

With regard to other information it was observed

that they do not fall out of the definition of

information. According to the petitioner, the

stand taken by respondent is contrary to the



44

provisions of the RTI Act. According to him, a

person, who makes an application cannot be

required to be specific much less to disclose the

purpose for which he needs the information. This

contention was raised by the petitioner on the

background of various requests made by

respondent to furnish the copies of e-mails. After

hearing both sides and on perusal of provisions of

Section 6 of the RTI Act, the High Court observed

that the distinction between the information on

one hand and the reasons for existence or non-

existence of a particular state of affairs on the

other hand, needs to be noticed. The Right of

Information Act has comprehensively defined the

word “information”. It takes in its fold, large

variety of sources of information, including

documents, e-mails, opinions, press release,

models, data material etc. The common feature

of various categories, mentioned in the definition

is that they exist in one form or the other and the

PIO has only to furnish the same, by way of a

copy or description. In contrast the reason or basis

as to why a particular state of affairs exists or does

not exist cannot be treated as a source, or item of

information. The petitioner had made reference

only to the e-mails, so that, they can verify

whether anything can be done at their level, in the

context of furnishing of information. The

petitioner firmly refused to accede to the request

and insisted that he is not under obligation to

reveal the same. In fact, he claimed

confidentiality, in relation to the e-mails. It was

further observed by the High Court that the efforts

of the petitioner appear to have been directed

mostly in relation to the reasons in support of an

administrative action or inaction and that too

without specifying the actual grievance, much

less, the authority, who was supposed to take a

decision. It is well nigh impossible for any one to

accede to the request of the petitioner within the

scope of the Act and Rules.

55. Overriding effect of section 22 of RTI Act


W.P.No. 16717/2008 , Decided on 04-12-2008

The Public Information Officer/ Joint

Secretary to Chief Commissioner of Land,

Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad and

another, Petitioner Vs. A.P. Information

Commissioner, (under Right to Information

Act, 2005) Rep by its Chief Information

Commission, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad and

other Respondents, CORAM : Hon'ble J.

V.V.S. Rao

1. An important question involved in this writ

petition was whether denial of certified copy of

Muntakhab to a person on the ground that he/she

is not a legal heir of Muntakhab holder is justified

under the provisions of Right to Information Act,

2005. The second respondent had filed an

application before the first respondent requesting

for a copy of Muntakhab under RTI Act. The first

petitioner refused to give certified copy on the

ground that her name does not figure in nor she

produced legal heir certificate issued by

competent civil court. The first petitioner also

opined that Muntakhab is personal in nature, that

it has no bearing of public interest and it need not

be disclosed. The Second respondent preferred

appeal before second petitioner which was

rejected on the ground that Muntakhab is not a

public document. The respondent then preferred

second appeal before A.P. Information

Commission which was allowed and CIC

directed petitioners to furnish copy of Muntakhab

to second respondent. It is against this order the

petitioners filed writ petition.



45



- W.P. No. 4109/2008, Dated : 29-02-2008- Md.

Shafiquzzaman, IAS, S/o Late Md.

Zafirulzaman, Petitioner Vs. A.P. Information

Commission, Respondents. by its Chief

Information Commissioner, HAACA Bhavan,

Hyderabad and three others Respondents.

CORAM : Hon. J. N. V. Ramana.

In this case the petitioner was an IAS Officer. He

filed an application before Government under

RTI Act requesting to furnish the list of all such

IAS officers against whom the Anti Corruption

Bureau conducted enquiries and recommended

departmental action/prosecution and the cases in


recommendations of the Anti Corruption Bureau

and dropped further action. Since the petitioner

was not furnished with relevant information

within stipulated time, he approached CIC under

section 18 of the RTI Act. While the matter was

pending before CIC the Secretary to Government

passed order stating that information as sought

for by the petitioner cannot be furnished as the

same is exempted under section 8(1)(h) and

8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. After considering all facts

the CIC directed the PIO and the Appellate

Authority to furnish the information as sought by

the petitioner within 30 days. Despite receiving

said order the respondent failed to furnish the

information and therefore, the petitioner was

constrained to file writ petition. During the

pendency of writ petition also the concerned

officers did not furnish the information in spite of

sufficient time granted by the High Court and in

spite of agreeing to furnishing the information.

Ultimately the writ petition was allowed with the

observation that lethargic attitude of the officers

concerned and the manner in which the

Government is procrastinating the matter in

providing the information as sought for by the

petitioner despite the orders of the Chief

Information Commission, the apex body under

the Act, dealing with the grievance of the Public,

in securing information from the Government

departments, gives rise to strong suspicion that




Government in not furnishing the information

that too on the directions of the Chief Information

Commission runs contrary to the provisions of

the Act which was enacted to bring about


Accordingly the Government was directed to

furnish the information as sought for by the

petitioner within a period of two weeks.

54. Disclose the purpose of Information


W.P. No. 20182 of 2008, Dated : 27-01- 2009,

Divakar S. Natarajan, Petitioner Vs. State

Information Commissioner, A. P. State and

others, Respondents Hon'ble J. L. Narsimha

Reddy.

In this case the petitioner had submitted an

application to the third respondent seeking

information under RTI Act. In his application he

had referred to his e-mails to the then Chief

Secretary the third respondent issued reply by

furnishing copy of Rules framed under RTI Act.

With regard to other information it was observed

that they do not fall out of the definition of

information. According to the petitioner, the

stand taken by respondent is contrary to the



44




Government in not furnishing the information as

sought for by the petitioner, that too on the

d i rec t ions of the Chief In format ion

Commissioner, runs contrary to the provisions of

the Act, which was enacted to bring about


In the circumstances the Government is directed

to furnish the information as sought for by the

petitioner and as directed by the CIC within two

weeks from today.

57. CIC empowered to enforce compliance of its orders.

High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore -

C.C.C. No. 525 /2008 (Civil), Dated : 27-01-

2009, Shri G. Basavraju, Petitioner. Vs. Smt.

Arundathi, Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble

J. S.R. Bannurmath, J. A.N. Venugopal

Gowda

This contempt petition was filed under sections

11 and 12 of the Contempt Courts Act to initiate

contempt proceeding against the accused for non-

implementation of the order passed by the

Karnataka High Court and to direct the accused to

implement the said order. The material point for

the consideration of the High Court was whether,

for disobedience of the order passed by the

Karnataka Information Commission, in exercise

of the powers and functions under Ss. 18 and 19

of the RTI Act, 2005, the contempt petition under

the Contempt of Courts Act, is maintainable.

After hearing both sides, the High Court observed

that the provisions contained in Section 20 of RTI

Act show that the Commission has been

conferred with the jurisdiction to penalise the

defaulting officer by levy of penalty up to a total

amount of Rs. 25,000/- and also recommend for

disciplinary action under the service rules

applicable to the defaulting officer. It is thus clear

that the RTI Act itself provides the procedure and

remedy. It is cardinal principle of statute, well

settled by Catena of decisions by the apex Court,

that Courts or Tribunals must be held to possess

power to execute its own order. Further the RTI

Act, which is a self-contained code, even if it has

not been specifically spelt out, must be deemed to

have been conferred upon the Commission the

power in order to make its order effective, by

having recourse to Section 20. In view of these

powers conferred upon the commission under

Section 20 of the RTI Act, the complainant has to

seek relief there under and consequently the

contempt petition would not be maintainable.

Holding this, the High Court dismissed the

contempt petition filed by the complainant.

58. Exempted Information Sec. 8

High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore -W.P.

No. 7953 of 2007, Dated: 16-07-2008, Sri H.

Ramakrishna Gowda, Petitioner Vs.

Karnataka Information Commission and

another, Respondents. CORAM: Hon'ble J. N.

Kumar.

In this case, the petitioner was directed to furnish

the particulars sought by the Second respondent.

The particulars were in the nature of the property

at Mysore. The grievance of the petitioner was

that furnishing of the said particulars would result

in unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the

individual and therefore, U/s 8 of the Right to

Information Act 2005 there is exemption from

disclosure by information. The petitioner was the

Managing Director of Karnataka State Coir



47

2. After examining the history of RTI Act and the

provisions therein the High Court observed that

the overview of RTI Act especially sections 6,7,8

read with Sections 2(f) and 2(i) of RTI Act, leads

to conclusion that the endeavour of legislation is

to harmonise conflicting public and private

interests. If information is available with public

authority, unless and until it is one of the

categories mentioned in Section 8(1), there

should not be any objection for furnishing

information subject to procedural compliance in

RTI Act. Even the information regarding private

persons can also be made available after Section 1

of RTI Act is complied with.

3. After considering the nature of document

Muntakhab the High Court further observed that

even if Muntakhab is considered as privileged

document under section 74 read with 123 of the

Evidence Act, still public authority as defined

under section 2(h) of the RTI Act cannot refuse.

By reason of Section 22 of RTI Act, provisions of

RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding

anything inconsistent therewith contained in any

other law. It only means that even if there is a

question of privilege involved, the RTI Act

compels furnishing of information unless and

until furnishing of information is barred under

section 8(1) of RTI Act. It is not permissible to

read implied prohibition or invisible mandates in

RTI Act. Holding this, the writ petition was

dismissed without any order as to costs.

56. Compliance of CIC Orders


- W.P.No. 4109 of 2008 - Decided on 11-03-

2008- Md. Shafiquzzaman, S/o Md.

ZafirulzamanPetitioners Vs. A.P. Information

Commission & others Respondents

1. In this case the petitioner was an IAS officer.

He filed an application before the Government

under the Right to Information Act 2005

requesting to furnish the list of such IAS officers

against whom the Anti Corruption Bureau

conducted enquiries and recommended

departmental action / prosecution and the cases in


recommendations and dropped further action

from 01-01-2002 till date. Since no information

was received within stipulated time, the

petitioner approached the Chief Information

Commissioner under section 18 of the RTI Act.

While the matter was pending before the CIC, the

Secretary to Government passed orders stating

that information as sought for by the petitioner

cannot be furnished as the same is exempted

under section 8(1)(h)and (j) of the RTI Act.

Taking into consideration said orders, the CIC

directed public Information Officer and appellate

authority to furnish the Information within 30

days and report compliance. Despite receiving

the said orders, the PIO and the Appellate

Authority failed to furnish the information and,

therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ

petition seeking direction to the Government to

implement the orders of the CIC.


record the High Court observed that the lethargic

attitude of the officers concerned and the manner

in which the Government is procrastinating the

matter in providing the information as sought for

by the petitioner, despite the orders of the Chief

Information Commissioner, the apex body under

the Act, dealing with grievances of public, in

securing information from the Government

Departments, gives rise to strong suspicion that



46




Government in not furnishing the information as

sought for by the petitioner, that too on the

d i rec t ions of the Chief In format ion

Commissioner, runs contrary to the provisions of

the Act, which was enacted to bring about


In the circumstances the Government is directed

to furnish the information as sought for by the

petitioner and as directed by the CIC within two

weeks from today.

57. CIC empowered to enforce compliance of its orders.

High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore -

C.C.C. No. 525 /2008 (Civil), Dated : 27-01-

2009, Shri G. Basavraju, Petitioner. Vs. Smt.

Arundathi, Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble

J. S.R. Bannurmath, J. A.N. Venugopal

Gowda

This contempt petition was filed under sections

11 and 12 of the Contempt Courts Act to initiate

contempt proceeding against the accused for non-

implementation of the order passed by the

Karnataka High Court and to direct the accused to

implement the said order. The material point for

the consideration of the High Court was whether,

for disobedience of the order passed by the

Karnataka Information Commission, in exercise

of the powers and functions under Ss. 18 and 19

of the RTI Act, 2005, the contempt petition under

the Contempt of Courts Act, is maintainable.

After hearing both sides, the High Court observed

that the provisions contained in Section 20 of RTI

Act show that the Commission has been

conferred with the jurisdiction to penalise the

defaulting officer by levy of penalty up to a total

amount of Rs. 25,000/- and also recommend for

disciplinary action under the service rules

applicable to the defaulting officer. It is thus clear

that the RTI Act itself provides the procedure and

remedy. It is cardinal principle of statute, well

settled by Catena of decisions by the apex Court,

that Courts or Tribunals must be held to possess

power to execute its own order. Further the RTI

Act, which is a self-contained code, even if it has

not been specifically spelt out, must be deemed to

have been conferred upon the Commission the

power in order to make its order effective, by

having recourse to Section 20. In view of these

powers conferred upon the commission under

Section 20 of the RTI Act, the complainant has to

seek relief there under and consequently the

contempt petition would not be maintainable.

Holding this, the High Court dismissed the

contempt petition filed by the complainant.

58. Exempted Information Sec. 8

High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore -W.P.

No. 7953 of 2007, Dated: 16-07-2008, Sri H.

Ramakrishna Gowda, Petitioner Vs.

Karnataka Information Commission and

another, Respondents. CORAM: Hon'ble J. N.

Kumar.

In this case, the petitioner was directed to furnish

the particulars sought by the Second respondent.

The particulars were in the nature of the property

at Mysore. The grievance of the petitioner was

that furnishing of the said particulars would result

in unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the

individual and therefore, U/s 8 of the Right to

Information Act 2005 there is exemption from

disclosure by information. The petitioner was the

Managing Director of Karnataka State Coir



47

2. After examining the history of RTI Act and the

provisions therein the High Court observed that

the overview of RTI Act especially sections 6,7,8

read with Sections 2(f) and 2(i) of RTI Act, leads

to conclusion that the endeavour of legislation is

to harmonise conflicting public and private

interests. If information is available with public

authority, unless and until it is one of the

categories mentioned in Section 8(1), there

should not be any objection for furnishing

information subject to procedural compliance in

RTI Act. Even the information regarding private

persons can also be made available after Section 1

of RTI Act is complied with.

3. After considering the nature of document

Muntakhab the High Court further observed that

even if Muntakhab is considered as privileged

document under section 74 read with 123 of the

Evidence Act, still public authority as defined

under section 2(h) of the RTI Act cannot refuse.

By reason of Section 22 of RTI Act, provisions of

RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding

anything inconsistent therewith contained in any

other law. It only means that even if there is a

question of privilege involved, the RTI Act

compels furnishing of information unless and

until furnishing of information is barred under

section 8(1) of RTI Act. It is not permissible to

read implied prohibition or invisible mandates in

RTI Act. Holding this, the writ petition was

dismissed without any order as to costs.

56. Compliance of CIC Orders


- W.P.No. 4109 of 2008 - Decided on 11-03-

2008- Md. Shafiquzzaman, S/o Md.

ZafirulzamanPetitioners Vs. A.P. Information

Commission & others Respondents

1. In this case the petitioner was an IAS officer.

He filed an application before the Government

under the Right to Information Act 2005

requesting to furnish the list of such IAS officers

against whom the Anti Corruption Bureau

conducted enquiries and recommended

departmental action / prosecution and the cases in


recommendations and dropped further action

from 01-01-2002 till date. Since no information

was received within stipulated time, the

petitioner approached the Chief Information

Commissioner under section 18 of the RTI Act.

While the matter was pending before the CIC, the

Secretary to Government passed orders stating

that information as sought for by the petitioner

cannot be furnished as the same is exempted

under section 8(1)(h)and (j) of the RTI Act.

Taking into consideration said orders, the CIC

directed public Information Officer and appellate

authority to furnish the Information within 30

days and report compliance. Despite receiving

the said orders, the PIO and the Appellate

Authority failed to furnish the information and,

therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ

petition seeking direction to the Government to

implement the orders of the CIC.


record the High Court observed that the lethargic

attitude of the officers concerned and the manner

in which the Government is procrastinating the

matter in providing the information as sought for

by the petitioner, despite the orders of the Chief

Information Commissioner, the apex body under

the Act, dealing with grievances of public, in

securing information from the Government

Departments, gives rise to strong suspicion that



46

him in the discharge of his judicial duty. This

principle provides protection to the Judges under

Judges (Protection) Act 1995. It was found

necessary to enact this act to enable judges to act

fearlessly and impartially in discharge of their

judicial duties.

3. Lastly even on merits, the High Court did not

find any error in the orders passed by respondents

1 to 3. The petition was, therefore, rejected on

merits.

60. Exempted Information Sec.8 & Third Party Information

High Court of Chennai - W.P. No. 5427 of 2007,

Dated : 25-06- 2007, Ms. V.V. Mineral,

Petitioner Vs. The Director of Geology &

MKining, Guindy, Chennai 32 and 5 others,

Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble J. K.

Chandru

In this case the petitioner was a registered firm

and respondent No. 4 had sought information

from respondent No. 3 regarding the lease

granted in favour of the petitioner and also the

transport permit granted to the petitioner and

other mineral company. The documents sought

for were government records viz. in respect of

lease and the Government was one of the parties

to these documents. Therefore, when these

details were sought for, the third respondent

instead of furnishing those documents sought for

the information of the petitioner as to whether

those documents can be furnished to the

respondent No. 4. The petitioner strongly

opposed stating that respondent No. 4 is a fraud

and a criminal and furthers a business competitor.

Respondent No.3 therefore, rejected the request thof 4 respondent by placing reliance on Section

8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved by the same the th

4 respondent filed an appeal which was allowed

and the third respondent was directed to furnish

the information sought for by the respondent No.

4. Against that order the writ petition was filed by

the petitioner. After hearing both sides and on

perusal of provisions of section 8 and 11 of the

RTI Act, the High Court held that in a case of

lease-deed and transport permits which emanates

from the statutory authorities where the petitioner

cannot said to be in exclusive position, he cannot

have a right to object to its being default as a third

party. It was further held that if the information is

available with the State and such information is in

exclusive custody of the State, the question of

seeking any opinion from the third party on such

issues may not arise especially when they are

public documents. By disclosure of such

information, no privilege or business interests of

the petitioner are affected. On the other hand,

such a disclosure may help any party to act upon

those documents and take appropriate steps.

Lastly it was held that if a person, who seeks for

documents, is a business competitor and if any

trade secret is sought for, then such document

may be denied but regarding public document, if

sought for by an individual whatever the

motivation of such individual in seeking

document has no relevancy as the Central RTI Act

had not made any distinction between a citizen

and a so-called motivated citizen. Holding this,

the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

However the petitioner was given opportunity to

file a second appeal to the State information

Commission as provided U/s 19A (3) of the RTI

Act since no such second appeal was preferred by

the petitioner.



49

Development Corporation Ltd. The Karnataka

High Court held that every public servant has to

disclose all his assets and members of his family.

In fact the said disclosure has been made by the

petitioner in the usual course. The particulars

sought for was with reference to the said

particulars which he had already disclosed.

Therefore, as is clear from Clause (j) of Section 8,

such information is not exempted. Therefore, the

authorities were justified in directing the

petitioner to furnish the particulars sought by

second respondent namely the applicant.

59. Judges need not give reasons beyond written judgments.

High Court of Karnataka - Writ Petition

No.28810 of 2008, Decided on 24-04-2009,

Khanapuram Gandaia-Petit ioner.Vs.

Administrative Officer, Ranga Reddy District

Court Cum-Public Information Office,

Respondent. CORAM : Hon'ble J. Anil Dave

1. The petitioner had sought information relating

to the orders passed by the Judicial Officer which

was rejected by the PIO, first Appellate Authority

and Second appellate authority. Aggrieved by

these rejections the petitioner filed present writ

petition. Advocate appearing on behalf of the

petitioner and respondents were heard at length.

The High Court also perused the relevant

provisions under the RTI Act and also the record

of the Judicial Officers. It was observed that the

authorities discharging judicial functions are not

covered under section 4 of the RTI Act and,

therefore, they are not obliged to provide any

information to the applicant in relation to the

decision taken by them. The reason for excluding

the authorities concerned while giving judicial

decisions is quite apparent. Judicial authorities

are supposed to support their judicial decisions by

giving reasons for which they come to a particular

conclusion. They are supposed to pass reasoned

orders so that the concerned party can know the

reason for which he failed or succeeded and the

appeal authority can know the reasons for which a

particular conclusion was arrived at. In this case

the petitioner under the guise of seeking

information had virtually asked to know as to

why and for what reason respondent No.4, a

judicial officer, had come to a particular

conclusion which was against the petitioner.

Thus, by way of application under section 6, the

petitioner wanted to know as to what transpired in

the mind of respondent No. 4 while deciding the

case wherein the petitioner was one of the parties

to the litigation. In our opinion, what transpired

in the mind of the Judge would not come within

the definition of the word “record”. Under the

provisions of the RTI Act, a citizen can seek only

information, which is available on record with the

public authority in material form but cannot seek

clarification by raising queries as to what was in

the mind of the Judge when he decided the case.

2. It was also observed that though sections

8(1)(b) and 24 of the RTI Act do not provide any

exemption to the Judges or judicial officers from

giving the information sought for, Section 4(1)(d)

specifically states that the public authority shall

provide reasons for its administrative or quasi

judicial decisions to affected persons. When

Section 4(1)(d) is specifically stating about the

reasons to be given by a public authority for its

administrative or quasi judicial decisions to the

affected persons, the Court cannot introduce into

it an entirely a new provision and say that the

public authorities shall also have to give reasons

to the affected parties for the decisions taken on

judicial side. Even otherwise it is to be noted that

no person shall be liable to be sued in any civil

Court for any act done or ordered to be done by



48

him in the discharge of his judicial duty. This

principle provides protection to the Judges under

Judges (Protection) Act 1995. It was found

necessary to enact this act to enable judges to act

fearlessly and impartially in discharge of their

judicial duties.

3. Lastly even on merits, the High Court did not

find any error in the orders passed by respondents

1 to 3. The petition was, therefore, rejected on

merits.

60. Exempted Information Sec.8 & Third Party Information

High Court of Chennai - W.P. No. 5427 of 2007,

Dated : 25-06- 2007, Ms. V.V. Mineral,

Petitioner Vs. The Director of Geology &

MKining, Guindy, Chennai 32 and 5 others,

Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble J. K.

Chandru

In this case the petitioner was a registered firm

and respondent No. 4 had sought information

from respondent No. 3 regarding the lease

granted in favour of the petitioner and also the

transport permit granted to the petitioner and

other mineral company. The documents sought

for were government records viz. in respect of

lease and the Government was one of the parties

to these documents. Therefore, when these

details were sought for, the third respondent

instead of furnishing those documents sought for

the information of the petitioner as to whether

those documents can be furnished to the

respondent No. 4. The petitioner strongly

opposed stating that respondent No. 4 is a fraud

and a criminal and furthers a business competitor.

Respondent No.3 therefore, rejected the request thof 4 respondent by placing reliance on Section

8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved by the same the th

4 respondent filed an appeal which was allowed

and the third respondent was directed to furnish

the information sought for by the respondent No.

4. Against that order the writ petition was filed by

the petitioner. After hearing both sides and on

perusal of provisions of section 8 and 11 of the

RTI Act, the High Court held that in a case of

lease-deed and transport permits which emanates

from the statutory authorities where the petitioner

cannot said to be in exclusive position, he cannot

have a right to object to its being default as a third

party. It was further held that if the information is

available with the State and such information is in

exclusive custody of the State, the question of

seeking any opinion from the third party on such

issues may not arise especially when they are

public documents. By disclosure of such

information, no privilege or business interests of

the petitioner are affected. On the other hand,

such a disclosure may help any party to act upon

those documents and take appropriate steps.

Lastly it was held that if a person, who seeks for

documents, is a business competitor and if any

trade secret is sought for, then such document

may be denied but regarding public document, if

sought for by an individual whatever the

motivation of such individual in seeking

document has no relevancy as the Central RTI Act

had not made any distinction between a citizen

and a so-called motivated citizen. Holding this,

the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

However the petitioner was given opportunity to

file a second appeal to the State information

Commission as provided U/s 19A (3) of the RTI

Act since no such second appeal was preferred by

the petitioner.



49

Development Corporation Ltd. The Karnataka

High Court held that every public servant has to

disclose all his assets and members of his family.

In fact the said disclosure has been made by the

petitioner in the usual course. The particulars

sought for was with reference to the said

particulars which he had already disclosed.

Therefore, as is clear from Clause (j) of Section 8,

such information is not exempted. Therefore, the

authorities were justified in directing the

petitioner to furnish the particulars sought by

second respondent namely the applicant.

59. Judges need not give reasons beyond written judgments.

High Court of Karnataka - Writ Petition

No.28810 of 2008, Decided on 24-04-2009,

Khanapuram Gandaia-Petit ioner.Vs.

Administrative Officer, Ranga Reddy District

Court Cum-Public Information Office,

Respondent. CORAM : Hon'ble J. Anil Dave

1. The petitioner had sought information relating

to the orders passed by the Judicial Officer which

was rejected by the PIO, first Appellate Authority

and Second appellate authority. Aggrieved by

these rejections the petitioner filed present writ

petition. Advocate appearing on behalf of the

petitioner and respondents were heard at length.

The High Court also perused the relevant

provisions under the RTI Act and also the record

of the Judicial Officers. It was observed that the

authorities discharging judicial functions are not

covered under section 4 of the RTI Act and,

therefore, they are not obliged to provide any

information to the applicant in relation to the

decision taken by them. The reason for excluding

the authorities concerned while giving judicial

decisions is quite apparent. Judicial authorities

are supposed to support their judicial decisions by

giving reasons for which they come to a particular

conclusion. They are supposed to pass reasoned

orders so that the concerned party can know the

reason for which he failed or succeeded and the

appeal authority can know the reasons for which a

particular conclusion was arrived at. In this case

the petitioner under the guise of seeking

information had virtually asked to know as to

why and for what reason respondent No.4, a

judicial officer, had come to a particular

conclusion which was against the petitioner.

Thus, by way of application under section 6, the

petitioner wanted to know as to what transpired in

the mind of respondent No. 4 while deciding the

case wherein the petitioner was one of the parties

to the litigation. In our opinion, what transpired

in the mind of the Judge would not come within

the definition of the word “record”. Under the

provisions of the RTI Act, a citizen can seek only

information, which is available on record with the

public authority in material form but cannot seek

clarification by raising queries as to what was in

the mind of the Judge when he decided the case.

2. It was also observed that though sections

8(1)(b) and 24 of the RTI Act do not provide any

exemption to the Judges or judicial officers from

giving the information sought for, Section 4(1)(d)

specifically states that the public authority shall

provide reasons for its administrative or quasi

judicial decisions to affected persons. When

Section 4(1)(d) is specifically stating about the

reasons to be given by a public authority for its

administrative or quasi judicial decisions to the

affected persons, the Court cannot introduce into

it an entirely a new provision and say that the

public authorities shall also have to give reasons

to the affected parties for the decisions taken on

judicial side. Even otherwise it is to be noted that

no person shall be liable to be sued in any civil

Court for any act done or ordered to be done by



48

that the appellant company does not come under

the provisions of Section 2(h)(a)(b)(c) or (d), but

thereafter Section 2(h)(d) of the definition clause

uses the word “includes”. It is well known that

when the word “includes” is used in an

interpretation clause, it is used to enlarge the

meaning of the words and phrases occurring in

the body of the statute. Reference in this

connection can be made to G.P.Singh's

“Principles of Statutory Interpretation”. In the

10th Edition of the said treatise, the learned

author formulated that when the word defined is

declared to “include” such and such, “the

definition is prima facie extensive” (page 175 of

the book). In support of the aforesaid

formulation, the learned author has referred to a

number of decisions. The latest decision referred

to in support of the aforesaid proposition was

rendered in the case of Associated Indem

Mechanical (P) Ltd. Vs. W.B. Small Industries

Development Corporation Ltd., (2007) 3 SCC

607. At paragraph - 13 page 614 & 615 of the

report, the learned Judges held as follows:-

“..The definition of premises in Section 2(c) uses

the word 'includes' at two places. It is well settled

that the word 'include' is generally used in

interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the

meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the

body of the statute; and when it is so used those

words or phrases must be construed as

comprehending, not only such things, as they

signify according to their natural import, but also

those things which the interpretation clause

declares that they shall include. (See Dadji Vs.

Sukhdeobabu, (1980) 1 SCC 621; Reserve Bank

of India Vs. Peerless General Finance and

Investment Co. Ltd., (1987) 1 SCC 424; and

Mahalakshmi Oil Mills Vs. State of A.P., (1989) 1

SCC 164.”

16. Therefore, obviously the definition of bodies

referred to in Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act

would receive a liberal interpretation, and here

the words which fall for interpretation are the

words controlled or substantially financed


appropriate Government.

The principle of purposive interpretation has been

explained by Chief Justice S.R.Das in Bengal

Immunity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1955

SC 661. In paragraph 22 at page 674 of the report

the learned Chief Justice referred to and adopted

the principles in Heydon's Case, (1584) 3 Co. Rep

7a(V). Those principles are: -

(i) What was the common law before the

making of the Act.

(ii) What was the mischief and defect for

which the common law did not provide.

(iii) What remedy the Parliament has resolved

and appointed to cure the disease of the common

law, and

(iv) The true reason for the remedy.

If we go by the aforesaid four principles, it will

appear that the constitutional principle of right to

know which was virtually a common law

principle of universal application was holding the

field before the coming into effect of the RTI Act,

in as much as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

that the right to know is a part of the fundamental

right to speech and expression and also a part of

the fundamental right to life. But, there was no

well-structured Act laying down the procedure

on how to exercise one's right to know and right to

information, which is why the RTI Act came into

existence.

23. The RTI Act has also provided a remedy for

facilitating the exercise of the right to information

and the reason for the remedy is also indicated in

the Preamble to the Act. So going by the direction



51

61 . Private information can be disclosed in public interest

High Court of Chennai W.P. 35490/2007,

Dated : 24-01-2008, A.C. Sekar, Petitioner, Vs.

The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative

Societies and others, Respondents. Hon'ble J.

K. Chandru.

In this case the petitioner was a sales-man in the

Second Respondent Bank and had filed writ

petition against the directions given by the first

respondent Deputy Registrar to the Second

respondent to furnish the information sought for

by the third respondent. The information that

was sought for was the details regarding the 7

ration shops run by the Second Respondent

society and the sales registers maintained by the

petitioner during the relevant period. After

hearing both sides the High Court held that the

communication between the respondents 1 and 2

and the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge

the same. The petitioner cannot claim any right

of privacy if those details are furnished to any

citizen who seeks such information. It is not as if

the third respondent is a stranger to the institution

from which the Information is sought for. But

rather she is beneficiary and consumer of the

products sold to the public on a State subsidy and,

therefore, she, as a citizen as well as a beneficiary

of the consumer from the said shop, is entitled to

seek the said information. It was also observed by

the High Court that it must be noted that no

private information of the petitioner has been

sought for and the information i.e. sought for is

only relating to the public office held by the

petitioner as sales-person in the society. After

considering the scope of the RTI Act, it was held

that the attempt of the petitioner to thwart the

direction issued by the first respondent cannot be

countenanced by this court. In fact, in these days

when there is an increasing allegation of

misfeasance and malfeasance committed in fair

price shops are coming to the notice of the public,

the RTI Act can be potent weapon to check such

illegal and criminal activities of the staff

employed in those shops. If ultimately by

furnishing of such information, the affairs of the

society can be brought to the attention of the

authorities, who are in charge of supply of

essential commodities, it can stem the tide of

further rot into the system. Holding this the writ

petition was dismissed by the High Court.

62. Public Authority

High Court of Chennai - W.A. No. Of 2008,

Dated : 05-08-2008, Tamilnadu Road

Development Company Limited Vs

Tamilnadu Information Commission

CORAM : Hon'ble Chief J. F. M. Ibrahim

Kalifulla, Hon'ble Mr. J. A.K. Ganguly.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment

and order dated 17th July, 2008 passed by a

learned Judge of the writ Court, whereby the

learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ

petition and inter alia upheld the order passed by

the Tamil Nadu Information Commission dated

21.05.2008, whereby the State Commission, the

first respondent herein, held that the appellant is a

“public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right

to Information Act, 2005 (herein after referred to

as the “RTI Act”) and directed the appellant to

furnish the required information to the second

respondent.

“If we look at the definition of Section 2(h),

which has been extracted herein above, it is clear



50

that the appellant company does not come under

the provisions of Section 2(h)(a)(b)(c) or (d), but

thereafter Section 2(h)(d) of the definition clause

uses the word “includes”. It is well known that

when the word “includes” is used in an

interpretation clause, it is used to enlarge the

meaning of the words and phrases occurring in

the body of the statute. Reference in this

connection can be made to G.P.Singh's

“Principles of Statutory Interpretation”. In the

10th Edition of the said treatise, the learned

author formulated that when the word defined is

declared to “include” such and such, “the

definition is prima facie extensive” (page 175 of

the book). In support of the aforesaid

formulation, the learned author has referred to a

number of decisions. The latest decision referred

to in support of the aforesaid proposition was

rendered in the case of Associated Indem

Mechanical (P) Ltd. Vs. W.B. Small Industries

Development Corporation Ltd., (2007) 3 SCC

607. At paragraph - 13 page 614 & 615 of the

report, the learned Judges held as follows:-

“..The definition of premises in Section 2(c) uses

the word 'includes' at two places. It is well settled

that the word 'include' is generally used in

interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the

meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the

body of the statute; and when it is so used those

words or phrases must be construed as

comprehending, not only such things, as they

signify according to their natural import, but also

those things which the interpretation clause

declares that they shall include. (See Dadji Vs.

Sukhdeobabu, (1980) 1 SCC 621; Reserve Bank

of India Vs. Peerless General Finance and

Investment Co. Ltd., (1987) 1 SCC 424; and

Mahalakshmi Oil Mills Vs. State of A.P., (1989) 1

SCC 164.”

16. Therefore, obviously the definition of bodies

referred to in Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act

would receive a liberal interpretation, and here

the words which fall for interpretation are the

words controlled or substantially financed


appropriate Government.

The principle of purposive interpretation has been

explained by Chief Justice S.R.Das in Bengal

Immunity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1955

SC 661. In paragraph 22 at page 674 of the report

the learned Chief Justice referred to and adopted

the principles in Heydon's Case, (1584) 3 Co. Rep

7a(V). Those principles are: -

(i) What was the common law before the

making of the Act.

(ii) What was the mischief and defect for

which the common law did not provide.

(iii) What remedy the Parliament has resolved

and appointed to cure the disease of the common

law, and

(iv) The true reason for the remedy.

If we go by the aforesaid four principles, it will

appear that the constitutional principle of right to

know which was virtually a common law

principle of universal application was holding the

field before the coming into effect of the RTI Act,

in as much as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

that the right to know is a part of the fundamental

right to speech and expression and also a part of

the fundamental right to life. But, there was no

well-structured Act laying down the procedure

on how to exercise one's right to know and right to

information, which is why the RTI Act came into

existence.

23. The RTI Act has also provided a remedy for

facilitating the exercise of the right to information

and the reason for the remedy is also indicated in

the Preamble to the Act. So going by the direction



51

61 . Private information can be disclosed in public interest

High Court of Chennai W.P. 35490/2007,

Dated : 24-01-2008, A.C. Sekar, Petitioner, Vs.

The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative

Societies and others, Respondents. Hon'ble J.

K. Chandru.

In this case the petitioner was a sales-man in the

Second Respondent Bank and had filed writ

petition against the directions given by the first

respondent Deputy Registrar to the Second

respondent to furnish the information sought for

by the third respondent. The information that

was sought for was the details regarding the 7

ration shops run by the Second Respondent

society and the sales registers maintained by the

petitioner during the relevant period. After

hearing both sides the High Court held that the

communication between the respondents 1 and 2

and the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge

the same. The petitioner cannot claim any right

of privacy if those details are furnished to any

citizen who seeks such information. It is not as if

the third respondent is a stranger to the institution

from which the Information is sought for. But

rather she is beneficiary and consumer of the

products sold to the public on a State subsidy and,

therefore, she, as a citizen as well as a beneficiary

of the consumer from the said shop, is entitled to

seek the said information. It was also observed by

the High Court that it must be noted that no

private information of the petitioner has been

sought for and the information i.e. sought for is

only relating to the public office held by the

petitioner as sales-person in the society. After

considering the scope of the RTI Act, it was held

that the attempt of the petitioner to thwart the

direction issued by the first respondent cannot be

countenanced by this court. In fact, in these days

when there is an increasing allegation of

misfeasance and malfeasance committed in fair

price shops are coming to the notice of the public,

the RTI Act can be potent weapon to check such

illegal and criminal activities of the staff

employed in those shops. If ultimately by

furnishing of such information, the affairs of the

society can be brought to the attention of the

authorities, who are in charge of supply of

essential commodities, it can stem the tide of

further rot into the system. Holding this the writ

petition was dismissed by the High Court.

62. Public Authority

High Court of Chennai - W.A. No. Of 2008,

Dated : 05-08-2008, Tamilnadu Road

Development Company Limited Vs

Tamilnadu Information Commission

CORAM : Hon'ble Chief J. F. M. Ibrahim

Kalifulla, Hon'ble Mr. J. A.K. Ganguly.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment

and order dated 17th July, 2008 passed by a

learned Judge of the writ Court, whereby the

learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ

petition and inter alia upheld the order passed by

the Tamil Nadu Information Commission dated

21.05.2008, whereby the State Commission, the

first respondent herein, held that the appellant is a

“public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right

to Information Act, 2005 (herein after referred to

as the “RTI Act”) and directed the appellant to

furnish the required information to the second

respondent.

“If we look at the definition of Section 2(h),

which has been extracted herein above, it is clear



50

3. Lastly it was observed that the Court reminds

itself of the preamble to the RTI Act which

necessitates a construction which will hopefully

cleanse our democratic polity of the corrosive

effect of corruption and infuse transparency in its

activities. Finally the High Court held that there

are no merits in the appeal and accordingly it is

dismissed.

64. RTI Act mandates full disclosure of information

High Court of Chennai - W. P. No. 47897/2006 -

Decided on 17-04-2008- R. Anbazhagan -

Petitioner. Vs. State Information Commission

and others. - Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble

J. Prabha Sridevan,

1. The facts in this writ petition were, the

petitioner was working as Deputy Manager at the

time of filing writ petition. Subsequently he th

resigned. The 4 respondent made an application

to PIO seeking information under the RTI Act

regarding the details of the petitioner's annual

gross income. The Chief Manager declined to

give the information on the ground that it is of a

personal nature and that it would not be revealed

to a third person without the authorisation of the thconcerned employee. Aggrieved by this the 4

respondent filed an appeal. The first respondent

passed impugned order holding that all

Government Public Sector undertakings come

under the purview of the RTI Act. Specific

information must be given to all the queries

immediately and reported to the commission.

The petitioner was aggrieved that without

discussion or consideration the impugned order

was passed. He, therefore, filed present writ

petition for quashing the said order.


provisions under the RTI Act the High Court held

that Tamilnadu Newsprint and papers Ltd(TNPL)

in which petitioner was working as Deputy

Manager, was under a statutory obligation to

make available, inter alias on the internet , the

information relating to the monthly remuneration

received by each of the officers and employees

including the system of compensation as

provided in its regulations. It is obvious that

TNPL has not done so. In fact it is not necessary

for any person to seek this information if TNPL

had discharged its obligation under section.

3. The information would have been available on

the internet to any person who is interested.

Lastly the High Court held that the object of the

RTI Act leans in favour of making available the

records in the custody or control of the public

authorities. Holding this the High Court

dismissed the writ petition with the direction that

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall give the

information as they are required to under the Act

within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.



53

65. Diamond Jubilee Higher Secondary School is a Public Authority

W.P.No.No.36901/2006, Decided on 16-03-

2007- Diamond Jubilee Higher Secondary

School, Petitioner. Vs. the Union of India and

others. Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble J.

K.Chandru

1. The petitioner school sought declaration that

either under the Tamilnadu Right to Information

Act 1977 or the Right to Information Act 2005

does not apply to the aided private school and also

for consequential relief for quashing the circular

issued by the District Educational Officer, the

third respondent, directing the management to

in Heydon's Case, followed by the Supreme

Court in Bengal Immunity (supra) such an Act

must receive a purposive interpretation to further

the purpose of the Act. So any interpretation

which frustrates the purpose of RTI Act must be

eschewed. Following the said well known canon

of construction, this Court interprets the

expression “public authority” under Section

2(h)(d)(i) liberally, so that the authorities like the

appellant who are controlled and substantially

financed, directly or indirectly, by the

government, come within the purview of the RTI

Act. In coming to the conclusion, this Court

reminds itself of the Preamble to the RTI Act

which necessitates a construction which will

hopefully cleanse our democratic polity of the

corrosive effect of corruption and infuse

transparency in its activities. In this context, a few

lines from Joseph Pulitzer, in a slightly different

context, will be very apt and are reproduced

hereunder.

“There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is

not a trick, there is not a swindle which does not

live by secrecy. Get these things out in the open,

describe them, attack them, ridicule them in the

press, and sooner or later public opinion will

sweep them away.”

63. Tamil Nadu Road Development Company is a Public Authority

High Court of Chennai - W.A No. 811/2008

Decided on 05-08-2008 Tamil Nadu Road

Development Company Ltd Rep. by its

Director-in-Charge Sindur Panthion Plaza, II

Floor, 346, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai

600 008, Petitioner Vs. Tamil Nadu

Information Commission, rep. by its stRegistrar, Kamdhenu Super Market 1 Floor,

No. 273, New No. 378, Anna Salai, Teynampet,

Chennai 18 And another. Respondents.

CORAM : Hon'ble J. Ibrahim Kalifulla

1. This Writ Appeal was directed against the

judgment and order passed by the learned Judge

of the Writ Court whereby the learned Judge was

pleased to dismiss the writ petition and inter alia

upheld the order passed by the Tamil Nadu

Information Commission. The second

respondent had sought the information under

RTI Act regarding contract agreement with the

contractors copies of documents published by

Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Ltd.

The main objection raised by the appellant was

that it is not covered under RTI Act in as much as

it is not a public authority within the meaning of

Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

2. After hearing both sides the High Court came to

the conclusion that the composition of the Board

of Directors of the Appellant Company makes it

clear that the appellant company is a body which

is controlled by the Appropriate Government. It

was also held that the project of the appellant

company was substantially financed by the

government. Apart from that the activities of the

appellant company are substantially controlled

by the Government, both kin composition of the

Board of Directors and also in the manner in

which the Articles of Association of the Appellant

company has been amended and the manner in

which the said project has been implemented and

monitored by the government by issuing from

time to time various government orders. As such

the Court is of the opinion that on a reasonable

interpretation of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the

appellant company comes within the meaning of

public authority as defined by Section 2(h) of the

RTI Act.



52

3. Lastly it was observed that the Court reminds

itself of the preamble to the RTI Act which

necessitates a construction which will hopefully

cleanse our democratic polity of the corrosive

effect of corruption and infuse transparency in its

activities. Finally the High Court held that there

are no merits in the appeal and accordingly it is

dismissed.

64. RTI Act mandates full disclosure of information

High Court of Chennai - W. P. No. 47897/2006 -

Decided on 17-04-2008- R. Anbazhagan -

Petitioner. Vs. State Information Commission

and others. - Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble

J. Prabha Sridevan,

1. The facts in this writ petition were, the

petitioner was working as Deputy Manager at the

time of filing writ petition. Subsequently he th

resigned. The 4 respondent made an application

to PIO seeking information under the RTI Act

regarding the details of the petitioner's annual

gross income. The Chief Manager declined to

give the information on the ground that it is of a

personal nature and that it would not be revealed

to a third person without the authorisation of the thconcerned employee. Aggrieved by this the 4

respondent filed an appeal. The first respondent

passed impugned order holding that all

Government Public Sector undertakings come

under the purview of the RTI Act. Specific

information must be given to all the queries

immediately and reported to the commission.

The petitioner was aggrieved that without

discussion or consideration the impugned order

was passed. He, therefore, filed present writ

petition for quashing the said order.



that Tamilnadu Newsprint and papers Ltd(TNPL)

in which petitioner was working as Deputy

Manager, was under a statutory obligation to

make available, inter alias on the internet , the

information relating to the monthly remuneration

received by each of the officers and employees

including the system of compensation as

provided in its regulations. It is obvious that



had discharged its obligation under section.

3. The information would have been available on

the internet to any person who is interested.

Lastly the High Court held that the object of the

RTI Act leans in favour of making available the

records in the custody or control of the public

authorities. Holding this the High Court

dismissed the writ petition with the direction that

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall give the

information as they are required to under the Act

within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.



53

65. Diamond Jubilee Higher Secondary School is a Public Authority

W.P.No.No.36901/2006, Decided on 16-03-

2007- Diamond Jubilee Higher Secondary

School, Petitioner. Vs. the Union of India and

others. Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble J.

K.Chandru

1. The petitioner school sought declaration that

either under the Tamilnadu Right to Information

Act 1977 or the Right to Information Act 2005

does not apply to the aided private school and also

for consequential relief for quashing the circular

issued by the District Educational Officer, the

third respondent, directing the management to

in Heydon's Case, followed by the Supreme

Court in Bengal Immunity (supra) such an Act

must receive a purposive interpretation to further

the purpose of the Act. So any interpretation

which frustrates the purpose of RTI Act must be

eschewed. Following the said well known canon

of construction, this Court interprets the

expression “public authority” under Section

2(h)(d)(i) liberally, so that the authorities like the

appellant who are controlled and substantially

financed, directly or indirectly, by the

government, come within the purview of the RTI

Act. In coming to the conclusion, this Court

reminds itself of the Preamble to the RTI Act

which necessitates a construction which will

hopefully cleanse our democratic polity of the

corrosive effect of corruption and infuse

transparency in its activities. In this context, a few

lines from Joseph Pulitzer, in a slightly different

context, will be very apt and are reproduced

hereunder.

“There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is

not a trick, there is not a swindle which does not

live by secrecy. Get these things out in the open,

describe them, attack them, ridicule them in the

press, and sooner or later public opinion will

sweep them away.”

63. Tamil Nadu Road Development Company is a Public Authority

High Court of Chennai - W.A No. 811/2008

Decided on 05-08-2008 Tamil Nadu Road

Development Company Ltd Rep. by its

Director-in-Charge Sindur Panthion Plaza, II

Floor, 346, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai

600 008, Petitioner Vs. Tamil Nadu

Information Commission, rep. by its stRegistrar, Kamdhenu Super Market 1 Floor,

No. 273, New No. 378, Anna Salai, Teynampet,

Chennai 18 And another. Respondents.

CORAM : Hon'ble J. Ibrahim Kalifulla

1. This Writ Appeal was directed against the

judgment and order passed by the learned Judge

of the Writ Court whereby the learned Judge was

pleased to dismiss the writ petition and inter alia

upheld the order passed by the Tamil Nadu

Information Commission. The second

respondent had sought the information under

RTI Act regarding contract agreement with the

contractors copies of documents published by

Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Ltd.

The main objection raised by the appellant was

that it is not covered under RTI Act in as much as

it is not a public authority within the meaning of

Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

2. After hearing both sides the High Court came to

the conclusion that the composition of the Board

of Directors of the Appellant Company makes it

clear that the appellant company is a body which

is controlled by the Appropriate Government. It

was also held that the project of the appellant

company was substantially financed by the

government. Apart from that the activities of the

appellant company are substantially controlled

by the Government, both kin composition of the

Board of Directors and also in the manner in

which the Articles of Association of the Appellant

company has been amended and the manner in

which the said project has been implemented and

monitored by the government by issuing from

time to time various government orders. As such

the Court is of the opinion that on a reasonable

interpretation of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the

appellant company comes within the meaning of

public authority as defined by Section 2(h) of the

RTI Act.



52

67. Co-Operatives in Kerala are Public Authorty u/s 2(h)

High Court of Kerala - Writ Petition No. rd

18175/2006, Decided on 3 April, 2009

Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank,

Petitioner Vs. Union of India, and 5 others,

Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble J. Thottathil

B. Radhakrishnan

Number of writ petitions were disposed off by the

common judgment by the Kerala High Court. In

all these writ petitions a common question of

applicability of Right to Information Act to Co-

operative Societies registered under Kerala Co-

operative Societies act, was raised and, therefore,

all the writ petitions were disposed of by the

common judgment.

The Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a

circular taking a view that all co-operative

societies registered under the Kerala Co-

operative Societies Act are under the

administrative control of the Registrar and,

therefore, public authorities for the purpose of the

RTI Act. Directions were hence issued, requiring

all societies to discharge the obligation as public

authorities under the RTI Act and to follow the

procedure stated therein. The information officer

in the co-operative department commenced

acting on complaint of non-consideration of

requests for information made by different

persons to societies. Hence all these writ petitions

were filed seeking to quash the aforesaid circular

and for declaration that the RTI Act does not

apply to societies registered under the K.C.S. Act.

After hearing both sides and on perusal of

provisions under both the Acts viz. RTI Act and

the Co-operative Societies act, the High Court

observed that a survey of different Government

orders, policy document etc. would show that part

of the share capital contribution to the District

Co-operative banks to the primary agricultural

credit and the co-operative societies, to the Kerala

State Co-operative Bank and capital involvement

in Urban Co-operative Banks, there is

contribution by way of subsidies in different

sectors. Different of other types of funding like

outright grant and selected funding are also made

available to different sectors. None of the writ

petitioners has a case that it does not enjoy any of

these facilities. The petitioners cannot sustain a

case that they are not substantially financed by the

Government. Predominantly, the presumption

has necessarily to be in favour of holding that all

the societies are substantially financed by funds

provided by the State Government. Such finance

may trickle by any mode without even any

contribution by the Government, from out of its

own funds, over which it has title. Having regard

to the object sought to be achieved by the RTI Act,

it is impermissible to presume to the contrary,

particularly when transparency is a matter to be

ensured even in the co-operative sector. It needs

to be remembered that the promotion of societies

by the State, including by its legislative support,

is with a view to provide for the orderly

development of the Co-operative sector by

organising the co-operative societies as self

governing democratic institutions to achieve the

objects of equality social justice and economic

development, as envisaged in the Directive

Principles of State Policy of the Constitution of

India. The RTI Act has become operationally

propounding the need of the democracy to have

an informed citizenry. Containing corruption is

absolutely essential for a vibrant democracy.

Transparency and accountability in societies have

necessarily to be provided for.

Observing the above it was held that the co-

operative societies registered under the KCS Act



55

66. Substantive reason need not be assigned for seeking certified copies

High Court of Chennai - W. P. No. 18533 of

2007, Decided on 27-02-2008, J.M.

Arumugham, Pet i t ioners Vs . S tate

represented by The Deputy Superintendent of

Police & others, Respondents

The writ petition was filed by the

petitioner seeking to set aside the order passed by

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem

declined to grant certified copies of the

documents pertaining to the Special Criminal

Case No. 14 of 2004 on his file. A Criminal case

was filed against respondent Nos. 2 to 8 under the

Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC for

acquisition of properties disproportionate to the

known source of their income. Later on, they

were discharged from the proceedings in Special

case by the order passed by the learned CJM

Salem. While passing the order the learned CJM

observed that no substantive reason was assigned

for seeking certified copies of the documents, that

the petitioner was not an affected person as

contemplated under section 363(5)of Cr.P.C, that

section 363 (6) of Cr.P.C. can be invoked only

before the High Court and that Rule 339 of

Cr.P.C. contemplates furnishing of the records of

the criminal case only to the parties concerned

and not to third parties, chose to dismiss the

petition seeking copies of the aforesaid

documents. The short question involved in this

writ petition is whether the petitioner being a

third party aggrieved by the order of discharge

passed by the CJM in a sensational case can seek

for certified copies of the material records

therein. After considering the relevant provisions

of Cr.P.C. and the RTI Act, the High Court held

that the Right to Information Act created a dent in 'the so-called privacy' being so far maintained by

the authorities concerned. The courts also will

have to be alive to the intendment of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 to share vital information

to the parties concerned. Any narrower

interpretation of the law and imposition of any

restriction on the right of the third party to know

what is actually going on at the portals of the

criminal justice system will not advance the

interest of justice. For all these reasons the Court

finds that the document sought for by the

petitioner will have to be granted to him. In view

of the above, the order passed by the learned CJM

is set aside and he is directed to issue certified

copies of the documents, the petitioner has sought

for in his application. The writ petition was

disposed off accordingly.



54

thfurnish the information sought by the 4

respondent.


relevant provisions under the RTI Act, the High

Court held that the petitioner management is a

public authority under Section 2(b)(d)(ii) and the

fact that more than crore of rupees is spent by the

State covering the 100% salary to all the teachers

for whom posts have been sanctioned, clearly

show that the school receives substantial funding.

Once the Act covers, there is no escape for the

petitioner management from providing the

information sought for by any citizen including ththe 4 respondent, who may or may not have any

grievance in the past relationship and only

escape, if at all is available, is the exemption

provided under section 8 of the RTI Act. On this

factual background of the matter the High Court

held that the contentions raised by the writ

petitioner are misconceived and have to fail

miserably. The writ petition was dismissed

accordingly.

67. Co-Operatives in Kerala are Public Authorty u/s 2(h)

High Court of Kerala - Writ Petition No. rd

18175/2006, Decided on 3 April, 2009

Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank,

Petitioner Vs. Union of India, and 5 others,

Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble J. Thottathil

B. Radhakrishnan

Number of writ petitions were disposed off by the

common judgment by the Kerala High Court. In

all these writ petitions a common question of

applicability of Right to Information Act to Co-

operative Societies registered under Kerala Co-

operative Societies act, was raised and, therefore,

all the writ petitions were disposed of by the

common judgment.

The Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a

circular taking a view that all co-operative

societies registered under the Kerala Co-

operative Societies Act are under the

administrative control of the Registrar and,

therefore, public authorities for the purpose of the

RTI Act. Directions were hence issued, requiring

all societies to discharge the obligation as public

authorities under the RTI Act and to follow the

procedure stated therein. The information officer

in the co-operative department commenced

acting on complaint of non-consideration of

requests for information made by different

persons to societies. Hence all these writ petitions

were filed seeking to quash the aforesaid circular

and for declaration that the RTI Act does not

apply to societies registered under the K.C.S. Act.

After hearing both sides and on perusal of

provisions under both the Acts viz. RTI Act and

the Co-operative Societies act, the High Court

observed that a survey of different Government

orders, policy document etc. would show that part

of the share capital contribution to the District

Co-operative banks to the primary agricultural

credit and the co-operative societies, to the Kerala

State Co-operative Bank and capital involvement

in Urban Co-operative Banks, there is

contribution by way of subsidies in different

sectors. Different of other types of funding like

outright grant and selected funding are also made

available to different sectors. None of the writ

petitioners has a case that it does not enjoy any of

these facilities. The petitioners cannot sustain a

case that they are not substantially financed by the

Government. Predominantly, the presumption

has necessarily to be in favour of holding that all

the societies are substantially financed by funds

provided by the State Government. Such finance

may trickle by any mode without even any

contribution by the Government, from out of its

own funds, over which it has title. Having regard

to the object sought to be achieved by the RTI Act,

it is impermissible to presume to the contrary,

particularly when transparency is a matter to be

ensured even in the co-operative sector. It needs

to be remembered that the promotion of societies

by the State, including by its legislative support,

is with a view to provide for the orderly

development of the Co-operative sector by

organising the co-operative societies as self

governing democratic institutions to achieve the

objects of equality social justice and economic

development, as envisaged in the Directive

Principles of State Policy of the Constitution of

India. The RTI Act has become operationally

propounding the need of the democracy to have

an informed citizenry. Containing corruption is

absolutely essential for a vibrant democracy.

Transparency and accountability in societies have

necessarily to be provided for.

Observing the above it was held that the co-

operative societies registered under the KCS Act



55

66. Substantive reason need not be assigned for seeking certified copies

High Court of Chennai - W. P. No. 18533 of

2007, Decided on 27-02-2008, J.M.

Arumugham, Pet i t ioners Vs . S tate

represented by The Deputy Superintendent of

Police & others, Respondents

The writ petition was filed by the

petitioner seeking to set aside the order passed by

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem

declined to grant certified copies of the

documents pertaining to the Special Criminal

Case No. 14 of 2004 on his file. A Criminal case

was filed against respondent Nos. 2 to 8 under the

Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC for

acquisition of properties disproportionate to the

known source of their income. Later on, they

were discharged from the proceedings in Special

case by the order passed by the learned CJM

Salem. While passing the order the learned CJM

observed that no substantive reason was assigned

for seeking certified copies of the documents, that

the petitioner was not an affected person as

contemplated under section 363(5)of Cr.P.C, that

section 363 (6) of Cr.P.C. can be invoked only

before the High Court and that Rule 339 of

Cr.P.C. contemplates furnishing of the records of

the criminal case only to the parties concerned

and not to third parties, chose to dismiss the

petition seeking copies of the aforesaid

documents. The short question involved in this

writ petition is whether the petitioner being a

third party aggrieved by the order of discharge

passed by the CJM in a sensational case can seek

for certified copies of the material records

therein. After considering the relevant provisions

of Cr.P.C. and the RTI Act, the High Court held

that the Right to Information Act created a dent in 'the so-called privacy' being so far maintained by

the authorities concerned. The courts also will

have to be alive to the intendment of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 to share vital information

to the parties concerned. Any narrower

interpretation of the law and imposition of any

restriction on the right of the third party to know

what is actually going on at the portals of the

criminal justice system will not advance the

interest of justice. For all these reasons the Court

finds that the document sought for by the

petitioner will have to be granted to him. In view

of the above, the order passed by the learned CJM

is set aside and he is directed to issue certified

copies of the documents, the petitioner has sought

for in his application. The writ petition was

disposed off accordingly.



54

thfurnish the information sought by the 4

respondent.


relevant provisions under the RTI Act, the High

Court held that the petitioner management is a

public authority under Section 2(b)(d)(ii) and the

fact that more than crore of rupees is spent by the

State covering the 100% salary to all the teachers

for whom posts have been sanctioned, clearly

show that the school receives substantial funding.

Once the Act covers, there is no escape for the

petitioner management from providing the

information sought for by any citizen including ththe 4 respondent, who may or may not have any

grievance in the past relationship and only

escape, if at all is available, is the exemption

provided under section 8 of the RTI Act. On this

factual background of the matter the High Court

held that the contentions raised by the writ

petitioner are misconceived and have to fail

miserably. The writ petition was dismissed

accordingly.

70. Penalty u/s 20 of RTI Act

High Court of Kerala - W P(C) No.7302 of

2007(T), Decided on 03-04-2007, M.D.

Thomas, S/o Late Mr. Devasia -- Petitioner

Vs.1. The Chief General Manager

(Operations), 2. The Assistant General

Manager-- Respondents. CORAM: Hon'ble

J. S. Siri Jagan

1. The petitioner had sought certain information

under the R.T.I. Act from second respondent

who rejected the application. The petitioner

filed appeal before the first respondent and

sought direction to the first respondent to

dispose of the same expeditiously. It seems that

the petitioner directly filed writ petition in the

High Court and at the time of hearing it was

submitted by the respondent that the first

respondent is not the appellate authority and the

Chief General Manager, State Bank of India co-

operative Centre Mumbai is the appellate

authority designated under the RTI Act to hear

appeal against the orders of the original

authority. In view of this disclosure the High

Court directed the Chief General Manager,

S.B.I. to consider and pass appropriate order on

the appeal preferred by the petitioner within one

month from the date of receipt of copy of this

judgment. It was also informed to the High

Court that copy of appeal was not traceable and,

therefore, the High Court directed that the writ

petition itself should be considered as an appeal

filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate

orders thereon. With this the writ petition was

disposed off.



57

respondent to make the application in the letter

pad of the organisation and to affix seal is also

unwarranted in view of the provisions of the Act.

Admittedly there was delay in furnishing the

information and there was no satisfactory reasons

or explanation for the delay. The petitioner has

rendered himself liable to be penalised for delay

cause in furnishing information. The writ petition

was, therefore, dismissed.

71. Pay and allowances information to be disclosed

The High Court of Kerala, Kochhi Bench -

Canara Bank, represented by Its Assistant

Regional Manager, Petitioner Vs. Central

Information Commission and Others,

Respondents.

In this case the Nationalised Bank

namely, Canara Bank challenged the order of the

Central Information Commission directing the

Bank to furnish the information requested by the

second respondent employee of the Bank.

Respondent No. 2 had sought information

relating to posting, transfer, and promotion etc. of

the clerical staff of Canara Bank. The Bank

refused to furnish the information on the ground

that Bank is exempted from disclosure of such

information under sub-sections (e)(j) of Section

8(1) of the Right to. Information Act 2005. The

matter was taken to the Central Information

Commission, which directed the Bank to furnish

the required information which order was

challenged by the Bank by filing writ petition

before the High Court. After hearing both sides

and on perusal of Sections 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the RTI

Act, the High Court observed that from reading of

these sections together it would appear that

the information mentioned in Sec. 3 is not

circumscribed by Sec. 4 at all. Section 4 only

lays down certain obligations the public

are public authorities for the purpose of the RTI

Act and are bound to act in conformity with the

obligations in Chapter -II of the Act of that Act.

All the writ petitions were dismissed accordingly.

68 . Public Authority u/s 2(h)

High Court of Kerala - W.P.(C) No. 4668/2007

(E), Decided on 04-07-2007 M.P. Varghese etc.

Petitioner Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University

And others Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble

J. Siri Jagan

The petitioners were principals of aided colleges

in the State of Kerala. They contended that the

aided private colleges are not authorities coming

within the purview of the definition of Public

Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act and

they cannot be saddled with the liability to

comply with the provisions of RTI Act. They

sought to quash the directions issued to the

colleges to comply with the provisions of the RTI

Act by appointing Information Officers as

stipulated in the RTI Act.

After hearing both sides and on perusal of the

relevant provisions the High Court observed that

after the introduction of the direct payment

system, teachers and staff of all aided private

colleges are paid by the Government directly.

These teachers and staff are also paid pension and

other retirement benefits from the exchequer. The

fees collected from the students are remitted to

the Government. The managements are paid

maintenance, and other grants for the upkeep of

the buildings of the college. Selection for

admission of students has to be in accordance

with the University Act, Statutes and Ordinances.

In short every facet of the functions of these aided

private colleges is strictly controlled and financed

by the Government. For coming within the

definition of Public Authority either control or

financing by Government need to be satisfied. In

this case both the conditions are satisfied. It is,

therefore, clear that these aided private colleges

are bodies controlled and substantially financed

directly or indirectly by the funds provided by

appropriate Government. That being so these

colleges would certainly answer the definition of

Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI

Act. There are no merits in the writ petition.

69. Penalty for delay caused in furnishing information

High Court of Kerala - WP(C) No. 2770 of

2009, Decided on 22-01-2009, K. Vijayakumar,

S/o Kumaran petitioner Vs State Information

Commission, Kerala and others. Respondent.

CORAM : Hon'ble Antony Dominic

1. The petitioner in this writ petition had

requested to quash the order by which the penalty

was imposed upon him under R.T.I. Act. The

petitioner was the Secretary of Munnar Grama

Panchayat and also the Public Information

Officer notified under the Act. The second

respondent made request under the Act and the

information sought was given but there was delay

in giving the information. The justification for

delay, as given by PIO was that the second

respondent did not pay the requisite fee. On

perusal of the facts and also the provisions of the

Act, the High Court observed that it is the

obligation that the information officer to specify

the necessary fee and intimate the same to a party.

This was not done while passing the order by the

petitioner. This has been the lapse on the part of

the petitioner. Further stand taken by the

petitioner in the notice requiring the second



56

70. Penalty u/s 20 of RTI Act

High Court of Kerala - W P(C) No.7302 of

2007(T), Decided on 03-04-2007, M.D.

Thomas, S/o Late Mr. Devasia -- Petitioner

Vs.1. The Chief General Manager

(Operations), 2. The Assistant General

Manager-- Respondents. CORAM: Hon'ble

J. S. Siri Jagan

1. The petitioner had sought certain information

under the R.T.I. Act from second respondent

who rejected the application. The petitioner

filed appeal before the first respondent and

sought direction to the first respondent to

dispose of the same expeditiously. It seems that

the petitioner directly filed writ petition in the

High Court and at the time of hearing it was

submitted by the respondent that the first

respondent is not the appellate authority and the

Chief General Manager, State Bank of India co-

operative Centre Mumbai is the appellate

authority designated under the RTI Act to hear

appeal against the orders of the original

authority. In view of this disclosure the High

Court directed the Chief General Manager,

S.B.I. to consider and pass appropriate order on

the appeal preferred by the petitioner within one

month from the date of receipt of copy of this

judgment. It was also informed to the High

Court that copy of appeal was not traceable and,

therefore, the High Court directed that the writ

petition itself should be considered as an appeal

filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate

orders thereon. With this the writ petition was

disposed off.



57

respondent to make the application in the letter

pad of the organisation and to affix seal is also

unwarranted in view of the provisions of the Act.

Admittedly there was delay in furnishing the

information and there was no satisfactory reasons

or explanation for the delay. The petitioner has

rendered himself liable to be penalised for delay

cause in furnishing information. The writ petition

was, therefore, dismissed.

71. Pay and allowances information to be disclosed

The High Court of Kerala, Kochhi Bench -

Canara Bank, represented by Its Assistant

Regional Manager, Petitioner Vs. Central

Information Commission and Others,

Respondents.

In this case the Nationalised Bank

namely, Canara Bank challenged the order of the

Central Information Commission directing the

Bank to furnish the information requested by the

second respondent employee of the Bank.

Respondent No. 2 had sought information

relating to posting, transfer, and promotion etc. of

the clerical staff of Canara Bank. The Bank

refused to furnish the information on the ground

that Bank is exempted from disclosure of such

information under sub-sections (e)(j) of Section

8(1) of the Right to. Information Act 2005. The

matter was taken to the Central Information

Commission, which directed the Bank to furnish

the required information which order was

challenged by the Bank by filing writ petition

before the High Court. After hearing both sides

and on perusal of Sections 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the RTI

Act, the High Court observed that from reading of

these sections together it would appear that

the information mentioned in Sec. 3 is not

circumscribed by Sec. 4 at all. Section 4 only

lays down certain obligations the public

are public authorities for the purpose of the RTI

Act and are bound to act in conformity with the

obligations in Chapter -II of the Act of that Act.

All the writ petitions were dismissed accordingly.

68 . Public Authority u/s 2(h)

High Court of Kerala - W.P.(C) No. 4668/2007

(E), Decided on 04-07-2007 M.P. Varghese etc.

Petitioner Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University

And others Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble

J. Siri Jagan

The petitioners were principals of aided colleges

in the State of Kerala. They contended that the

aided private colleges are not authorities coming

within the purview of the definition of Public

Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act and

they cannot be saddled with the liability to

comply with the provisions of RTI Act. They

sought to quash the directions issued to the

colleges to comply with the provisions of the RTI

Act by appointing Information Officers as

stipulated in the RTI Act.

After hearing both sides and on perusal of the

relevant provisions the High Court observed that

after the introduction of the direct payment

system, teachers and staff of all aided private

colleges are paid by the Government directly.

These teachers and staff are also paid pension and

other retirement benefits from the exchequer. The

fees collected from the students are remitted to

the Government. The managements are paid

maintenance, and other grants for the upkeep of

the buildings of the college. Selection for

admission of students has to be in accordance

with the University Act, Statutes and Ordinances.

In short every facet of the functions of these aided

private colleges is strictly controlled and financed

by the Government. For coming within the

definition of Public Authority either control or

financing by Government need to be satisfied. In

this case both the conditions are satisfied. It is,

therefore, clear that these aided private colleges

are bodies controlled and substantially financed

directly or indirectly by the funds provided by

appropriate Government. That being so these

colleges would certainly answer the definition of

Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI

Act. There are no merits in the writ petition.

69. Penalty for delay caused in furnishing information

High Court of Kerala - WP(C) No. 2770 of

2009, Decided on 22-01-2009, K. Vijayakumar,

S/o Kumaran petitioner Vs State Information

Commission, Kerala and others. Respondent.

CORAM : Hon'ble Antony Dominic

1. The petitioner in this writ petition had

requested to quash the order by which the penalty

was imposed upon him under R.T.I. Act. The

petitioner was the Secretary of Munnar Grama

Panchayat and also the Public Information

Officer notified under the Act. The second

respondent made request under the Act and the

information sought was given but there was delay

in giving the information. The justification for

delay, as given by PIO was that the second

respondent did not pay the requisite fee. On

perusal of the facts and also the provisions of the

Act, the High Court observed that it is the

obligation that the information officer to specify

the necessary fee and intimate the same to a party.

This was not done while passing the order by the

petitioner. This has been the lapse on the part of

the petitioner. Further stand taken by the

petitioner in the notice requiring the second



56



59

denied to any person. By no stretch of

imagination can it be held that the information nd requested for by the 2 respondent are

information which can be denied to the

Parliament and a State Legislature.

6. Holding above, the High Court dismissed

the writ petition with no order as to costs.

authorities are required to perform in addition to

the duty to furnish information to citizen when

requested for. These obligations are to be

compulsorily performed apart from other

liabilities on the part of the public authority to

supply information available with them as

defined under the Act subject of course to the

exceptions laid down in the Act.

2. It was further observed by the High Court nd that the information requested for by the 2

respondent relates to transfer and promotion of

employees of the Bank. Such information does

not pertain to any fiduciary relationship of the

petitioner Bank with anybody coming within the

purview of Section 8(1) (e) . Such information

cannot be said to be held in trust by the Bank on

behalf of its employees, and therefore, cannot be

exempted under this sub-section. In fact, without

knowing this information, one employee cannot

know his rights vis-a-vis other employees. Such

information necessarily to be divulged if we are

to have an informed citizenry and transparency of

information which are vital to the functioning of

the Bank and to contain corruption so as to hold

the Bank which is an instrumentality of the Stale,

accountable to the people, which are the avowed

objects of the Act, as proclaimed in the preamble

of the Act.



that Tamilnadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd

(TNPL) in which petitioner was working as

Deputy Manager, was under a statutory

obligation to make available, inter alias on the

internet, the information relating to the monthly

remuneration received by each of the officers and

employees including the system of compensation

as provided in its regulations. It is obvious that



had discharged its obligation under section 4. The

information would have been available on the

Internet to any person who is interested. Lastly

the High Court held that the object of the RTI Act

leans in favour of making available the records in

the custody or control of the public authorities.


petition with the direction that respondent Nos. 2

and 3 shall give the information, as they are

required to under the Act within a period of 15

days from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

4. It is not correct to suggest that information nd

sought for by the 2 respondent relates to

personal information pertaining to employees of

the Bank, disclosure of which has no relationship

with any public activity or interest of the Bank or

its employees and it would cause unwarranted

invasion on the privacy of these employees,

details of whose transfers are requested for by the na 2 respondent. If this contention on the basis of

Section 8(1) (j) is upheld, it would in fact

encounter to the very object of the RTI Act itself.

Not only that but if that contention is accepted,

then information relating to any person in respect

of his illegal activities, especially corruption or

misconduct could be withheld on the basis of said

section which is not what is contemplated under

the RTI Act. The information mentioned in

Section 8(1) (j) is personal information, which are

so intimately private in nature that the disclosure

of the same would not benefit any other person,

but would result in the invasion of the privacy of

that person.

5 . It was further held that the proviso to

the section qualifies the section by stating that

information which cannot be denied to the

Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be



58



59

denied to any person. By no stretch of

imagination can it be held that the information nd requested for by the 2 respondent are

information which can be denied to the

Parliament and a State Legislature.

6. Holding above, the High Court dismissed

the writ petition with no order as to costs.

authorities are required to perform in addition to

the duty to furnish information to citizen when

requested for. These obligations are to be

compulsorily performed apart from other

liabilities on the part of the public authority to

supply information available with them as

defined under the Act subject of course to the

exceptions laid down in the Act.

2. It was further observed by the High Court nd that the information requested for by the 2

respondent relates to transfer and promotion of

employees of the Bank. Such information does

not pertain to any fiduciary relationship of the

petitioner Bank with anybody coming within the

purview of Section 8(1) (e) . Such information

cannot be said to be held in trust by the Bank on

behalf of its employees, and therefore, cannot be

exempted under this sub-section. In fact, without

knowing this information, one employee cannot

know his rights vis-a-vis other employees. Such

information necessarily to be divulged if we are

to have an informed citizenry and transparency of

information which are vital to the functioning of

the Bank and to contain corruption so as to hold

the Bank which is an instrumentality of the Stale,

accountable to the people, which are the avowed

objects of the Act, as proclaimed in the preamble

of the Act.



that Tamilnadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd

(TNPL) in which petitioner was working as

Deputy Manager, was under a statutory

obligation to make available, inter alias on the

internet, the information relating to the monthly

remuneration received by each of the officers and

employees including the system of compensation

as provided in its regulations. It is obvious that



had discharged its obligation under section 4. The

information would have been available on the

Internet to any person who is interested. Lastly

the High Court held that the object of the RTI Act

leans in favour of making available the records in

the custody or control of the public authorities.


petition with the direction that respondent Nos. 2

and 3 shall give the information, as they are

required to under the Act within a period of 15

days from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

4. It is not correct to suggest that information nd

sought for by the 2 respondent relates to

personal information pertaining to employees of

the Bank, disclosure of which has no relationship

with any public activity or interest of the Bank or

its employees and it would cause unwarranted

invasion on the privacy of these employees,

details of whose transfers are requested for by the na 2 respondent. If this contention on the basis of

Section 8(1) (j) is upheld, it would in fact

encounter to the very object of the RTI Act itself.

Not only that but if that contention is accepted,

then information relating to any person in respect

of his illegal activities, especially corruption or

misconduct could be withheld on the basis of said

section which is not what is contemplated under

the RTI Act. The information mentioned in

Section 8(1) (j) is personal information, which are

so intimately private in nature that the disclosure

of the same would not benefit any other person,

but would result in the invasion of the privacy of

that person.

5 . It was further held that the proviso to

the section qualifies the section by stating that

information which cannot be denied to the

Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be



58