Central Information Commission
Mr.Shiv Shankar Prasad Sinha vs District Session Judge, Delhi on 11 January, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/002475
Date of Hearing : January 11, 2012
Date of Decision : January 11, 2012
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Shiv Shankar Prasad Sinha
R/o House No. D84
2nd Floor, Nehru Vihar,
Near Timarpur
Delhi 110 054
The Appellant was not present.
Respondents
Tis Hazari Courts
Office of the District & Session Judge
Delhi 110 054
Represented by: Ms. Harbhajan Kaur, Supdt.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002475
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication (dated 04.07.2011) with the PIO, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi seeking various details (a to t) in respect of cases which are pending in the Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. He specifically enquired about the Case FIR No. 33/07, u/s 387/506 IPC, P. S.: Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi NDOH:23/07/2011. Since the Applicant did not receive any reply from the PIO, he filed his first appeal with the Appellate Authority (AA). The AA in response passed an order dated 05.09.2011 dismissing the Appellant's request for information on the ground that the same is hit by Section 9 and 7 of Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008. The Appellant thereafter filed the present petition before the Commission on 27.09.2011 challenging the AA's decision. Decision
2. During the hearing, the PIO Tis Hazari Court brought to the attention of the Commission the fact that she had on receipt of the RTI application sought the required information u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act, from Shri Ahlmad, in the Court of Shri Sanjay Bansal, Ld.ACMM (as is the holder of the information) vide her letter dated 7.8.11 and that despite at least 4 reminders, Mr. Ahlmad had not bothered to pass on the information to a her. The information, therefore, could not be furnished to the Appellant.
3. The Commission at this stage reviewed the information sought by the Appellant point wise and decided as given below:
Items a & b:
4. The Appellant had sought to know certain details (such as name of the accused, FIR N. PS, next date of hearing etc.) of pending cases. According to the Respondents, most of the details the Appellant here had sought for are generally placed on the website of the Court. I see no reason why such basic and innocuous information need to be withheld from disclosure. It is, therefore, directed that the Deemed PIO (i.e. Ahlmad) shall provide this information to the Appellant as available in their records. However, as a measure of abundant caution, the Deemed PIO shall be free to withhold those parts of information which attract the exemption under Section 8(1) (g) & (h) of the RTIAct. Items c, d, e, f, , j, k , g & q:
5. According to the Respondents, they have their own Rule/procedure under which this variety of information can be obtained on payment of requisite fee.
I find nothing wrong if the Appellant approaches the Respondents under their Rules for supply of the present information. The Appellant is accordingly advised to approach the public authority under their prescribed Rules, should he wish to receive the information. Item h:
6. The Appellant wanted to obtain certain details of a pending case which in under trial of the Court. The representative of the Respondents stated that any disclosure at this stage would impede the trial proceeding of the court. She cited exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTIAct. I agree with the Respondents' stand here. It is, therefore, directed that there shall be no disclosure obligation on the Respondents with regard to this item of query. Item i:
7. The Appellant wanted to know under which provision/Rule the ACMM has power to dismiss the application filed for speedy trial/disposal of a case.
According to the judgment of the Apex Court in Khanpuram Gandhiah Vs Administrative officers & ors (SLP (C) No. 34868 of 2009), a judge is not bound to explain why he has come to particular decision/conclusion.
In view of the above ruling of the Apex Court, the information demanded by the Appellant here cannot be allowed.
Items l, m, n, o, p r, s & t
8. The Respondents stated that they do not have any documents/information relating to the queries the Appellant has put forth here. No disclosure can, therefore, be authorized.
9. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Shiv Shankar Prasad Sinha R/o House No. D84 2nd Floor, Nehru Vihar, Near Timarpur Delhi 110 054
2. Appellate Authority (RTI) Tis Hazari Courts Office of the District & Session Judge (North) Delhi 110 054
3. Public Information Officer (RTI) Tis Hazari Courts Office of the District & Session Judge (North) Delhi 110 054
4. Officer incharge, NIC Note: In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.