Central Information Commission
Mramrit Lalagnihotri vs District Session Judge, Delhi on 19 April, 2016
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/2016/900112
Amrit Lal Agnihotri v. PIO, Tis Hazari Court
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 08.05.2015 Reply: 12.06.2015 FAO: 11.09.2015
SA: 02.12.2015 Hearing: 19.04.2016 Decided on : 19.04.2016
Result: Show cause.
Parties Present:
1. Appellant is present with Deepak Agnihotri. Mr. Usha Arora, PIO and Mr. Amit Saxena,
JJA represent Public authority.
FACTS:
2. The appellant sought information pertaining to inspection of register of Oath Commissioners and certified copy of entries made therein. The CPIO stated that no register has been received till date and so information is not available. The FAA upheld CPIO. The appellant filed second appeal before this Commission.
Decision :
3. Appellant wanted to have inspection of registers of Oath Commissioners. PIO stated that the registers of Oath Commissioners are not available with them as it were not submitted to them by Oath Commissioners. According to "Instructions to Oath Commissioners" clause number 17, issued on 14.09.2001 as amended on 17.11.2014, the Oath Commissioners have submit annual registers to District and Session Judge office and High Court as the case may be. This means the Oath Commissioners appointed for District and Session Judge Court, have to submit their registers to the respective court of their jurisdiction in which they are operating, at the end of every calendar year. The appellant is seeking extracts of entries in registers of Oath Commissioners, Smt. Jai Shri Priya, Shri S. R. Barkha and Shri Sushil Kumar Verma as mentioned in the RTI application. The appellant request these extracts to establish the presence and Oath taking of certain deponents with whom he has certain litigation. These Oath Commissioners attest the depositions through affidavits.
4. The PIO of Delhi High Court in their response dated 05.05.2015 suggested the appellant to approach to the concerned district court for obtaining certified copies of pages from the registers maintained by the said Oath Commissioners.
5. The Commission finds that it is the duty of the public authority to collect and maintain these registers from the Oath Commissioners who are also public authority as they appointed by the High Court and function on behalf of courts. Hence the public authority is under obligation under Section 4 (1) (a) and (b) to maintain such records to make it available for the requiring citizens. The Commission directs the CPIO to facilitate inspection of the registers as per the request of the appellant on 27.04.2016 at 2.30 pm. The Commission also directs the CPIO to showcause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against her for non furnishing of information, though the public authority is under obligation to provide the information under section 4 of RTI within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.
6. The Commission requires under Section 19 (8) (a) the public authority should maintain the registers of all the Oath Commissioners regularly in their court by duly collecting them from the Commissioners every end of the calendar year from the date of appointment of such Oath Commissioners.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, O/o Director of Prosecution, GNCTD, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi110054.
2. Shri Amrit Lal Agnihotri, 95A/GH 10, Sunder Apartments, POSunder Vihar, New Delhi.