Central Information Commission
N P Gadhvi vs High Court Of Other States on 27 December, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/HCOST/A/2019/137360
Shri N P Gadhvi ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Gujarat High Court
Date of Hearing : 27.12.2021
Date of Decision : 27.12.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.04.2019
PIO replied on : 01.05.2019
First Appeal filed on : 09.05.2019
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 02.08.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated10.04.2019 seeking documents in the matter of company application no. 399/2011 Maharana Mills Vs State of Gujarat and Ors.
1. Petition filed by Maharana Mill, alongwith annexures.
2. Reply -affidavit filed by Gujarat State and Orsalongwith enclosures.
3. Affidavits filed by both the parties from time to time with annexure etc, if any, thereafter.
4. Orders released therein from the beginning till date.
The PIO vide letter dated 01.05.2019 intimated as under:-
Page 1 of 4Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.05.2019 and the same remained unheard as per available records.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO, High Court of Gujarat vide letter dated 18.12.2021 wherein while reiterating the reply of the CPIO it was inter alia stated that the first appeal was decided vide order dated 31.12.2019. It was further stated that copies of judicial orders/ judicial papers cannot be provided under the RTI Act as per the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 04.03.2020 in SLP (C) No 5840/2015 Chief Information Commissioner vs High Court of Gujarat and Another as certified copy of any judicial proceeding would be available on making application under Rule 149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He questioned the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner vs High Court of Gujarat and AnotherSLP (C) No 5840/2015 decided on 04.03.2020 and stated that he desired the Xerox copies and not the certified copies of the documents pertaining to company application no. 399/2011 Maharana Mills Vs State of Gujarat and Ors which should be disclosed by the Public Authority in view of the overriding powers under Section 22 of the RTI Act.
The Respondent represented by Shri A S Raghupathy, PIO and Addl Registrar, High Court of Gujarat participated in the hearing through audio conference. He reiterated his written submission dated 18.12.2021 and stated that copies of the Page 2 of 4 judicial records should be obtained by the Appellant in accordance with the procedure contained in Rule 149 to 154 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993.
Decision:
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission observes that the issues pertaining to accessing certified copies of documents on the judicial side has been settled by a bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Royof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner Vs. High Court of Gujarat and Another in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1966-1967 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5840 of 2015) dated 04th March, 2020, wherein it was held that one must apply under Court Rules to get the certified copies of Court documents. The relevant para of the observations of the Court are reiterated as under:-
"42. We do not find any merit in the above submission and that such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the information/certified copies of the documents. When there is an effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reasons for which the certified copies are required, we do not find any justification for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources which the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid.
43. We summarise our conclusion:-
(i) Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act; but merely lays down a different procedure as the practice or payment of fees, etc. for obtaining information. In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
(ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to."Page 3 of 4
Thus, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Second Appeal which is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4