Central Information Commission
Mr. S K Sharma Advocate vs High Court Of Allahahbad on 4 June, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No- CIC/PA/C/2009/000024
Right to Information Act- Section 18
Complainant: Shri S K Sharma
Respondent: High Court of Allahabad.
Decision announced 04.06.'10
Facts
The Commission has received a complaint from Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate of Patiala House, New Delhi that his request dated 12.03.2009 under RTI Act, 2005 submitted to Chief Public Information Officer, High Court of Allahabad, Allahabad, UP has not been responded to even though the same were duly submitted with requisite fees. The complainant sought the following information "a) Whether Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad had appointed any Judicial Officer in District Court Ghaziabad to act as District Delegates to grant probate & letters of administration under section 265 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 or not, if appointed then date of such appointment.
b) How many Probate & Letter of Administration had been granted by District Judge & Additional District Judge of Ghaziabad, till date since its establishment (Year wise) "
On not receiving any response from the CPIO within time stipulated under the Act complainant appealed to the Registrar- General, Allahabad High Court, Appellate Authority through an application dated 06.06.2009 but that was not responded to.
The Commission has decided to admit Shri S.K. Sharma's complaint u/s 18(1)
(b) of the Act. And issued notice to the CPIO, High Court of Allahabad, Allahabad, UP dated 01.04.10 for furnishing comments. In his response Joint Registrar (E), CPIO, High Court of Allahabad, Allahabad, UP dated 27.04.10 submitted that a reply was indeed sent to Shri S.K. Sharma vide letter No. I.C 4452 dated 29.08.2009.
However, CPIO has not given any reason for the delay in responding to the RTI Application dated 12.03.'09.
Decision Notice 1 From a perusal of facts above it is quite clear that the CPIO has responded to the RTI request of the complainant. No response from the CPIO being the only ground of complaint before us and having received a reply from him through application dated 29.08.2009, nothing remains for us to decide. The Commission has thus decided to treat this complaint as infructuous in substance.
Nevertheless, we find that the CPIO, High Court of Allahabad, responded to the request to which a response fell due u/s 7(1) of the Act by 12.4.'09 by over 150 days. He will therefore show cause in writing (delivered either by fax or e-mail at [email protected]) as to why a penalty of Rs 250/- per day subject to a maximum of Rs 25,000/- should not be imposed on him u/s 20(1) of the Act, by or before Friday June 25, 2010, failing which this Commission will proceed in a accordance with Section 20.
Announced on this fourth day of June 2010 in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Wajahat Habibullah (Chief Information Commissioner) 4.6.'10 Authenticated true copy, additional copies of order shall be supplied against application and payment of the charge prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
Pankaj K.P Shreyaskar Joint Registrar 4.6.'10 2