Central Information Commission
Mrazad Singh vs Gnctd on 25 August, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2015/001074
Azad Singh v. PIO, Rohini Court
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 18.02.2015 Reply: 04.03.2015 FAO: 18.04.2015
SA: 07.07.2015 Hearing:18.08.2015 Decision: 25082015
Result: Appeal rejected.
Parties Present:
1. Appellant is not present. Ms. Savita Kumari, PIO and Mr. Gaurav Bhutani represent
Public authority.
FACTS:
2. Appellant through his RTI application wanted to know how many Detailed Accident Reports (DAR) were made in time or delay in filing in between 06.03.2014 to 23.07.2014, and what action has been taken after delay etc. PIO replied that information cannot be provided as it pertains to judicial records, Being unsatisfied appellant filed first appeal. FAA upheld PIO reply. Being unsatisfied, appellant approached the Commission. Proceedings Before the Commission:
3. PIO Rohini Court says that they do not maintain such records. The information sought by the appellant pertains to the judicial records which is accessible to all the citizens by following procedures laid down in the Delhi High Court Rules & Orders. It was also stated when an information or record is already in the public domain and there is already a procedure exists for disclosure, the same cannot said to be held or under control of the public authority as laid down in case titled as Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. Decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 01.06.2012 (Reported in ILR 2012 VI Delhi 499 W.P.(C) 11271/2009.
4. Further in another case titled as Registrar of Companies & Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (supra) Hon'ble High Court has also interalia held as : "Therefore, if another statutory provision, created under any law, vests the right to seek information and provides the mechanism for invoking the said right (which is also statutory, as in this case) that mechanism should be preserved and operated and not destroyed merely because another general law created to empower the citizens to access information has subsequently been framed".
5. Similarly, stay has been granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a matter WP Civil No. 3530/2011 titled as Registrar, Supreme Court of India V. R. S. Misra and Ors. And also by CIC in decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/ 00237/SG/12351 Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000237/SG dated 11.05.2011.
6. The Commission agrees with the contention of the PIO and rejects the appeal.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, O/o District & Session Judge, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
2. Shri Azad Singh, H. No. 424/15, Panchi Road, Gandhi Nagar, Distt. Sonepat (Haryana).