Central Information Commission
Rekha vs Gnctd on 24 June, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/103128
Rekha .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o the Principal District &
Sessions Judge, Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Court, Delhi - 110092 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.05.2025
Date of Decision : 24.06.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 09.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Please provide the investigation report with certified copy of the documents in suit no. 412/2023 Rakha V/s Sh. Ram Pal Singh L.I.C. Agent B- 241, Salimar Garden, U. P. Copy enclosed Annexure A 2 Please provide the certified copy of the Cheque No. 813447 dated 19.12.2014 State Bank of India New Delhi Rs. 500000/-
3. Please provide the certified copy of the Cheque No. 813449 dated 21.03.2015 State Bank of India, New Delhi Rs. 500000/-Page 1 of 7
4. Please provide the certified copy of the Cheque No. 667386 dated 11.07.2022 Canara Bank New Delhi Rs. 10000/-
5. Please provide the certified copy of the Receipt of Sarvotam Hi Tech Infra Developers Limited.
6. Please provide the certified copy of the Bank Receipt of PNB Dilshad Garden Delhi where Cheque No. 813447 dated 19.12.2014 Rs. 50000//deposited by Sh. Rampal Singh L.I.C. Agent on 20.12.2014.
7. Please provide the certified copy of the Bank Receipt of PNB Sansad Marg New Delhi where cheque No. 813449 dated 21.03.2015 Rs. 500000/- deposited by Sh. Rampal Singh L.I.C. Agent on 23.03.2015.
8. Please provide the LI.C. No. of Sh. Ram Pal Singh L.I.C. Agent R/o B-241 Shalimar Garden U. P.
9. Please provide the L.I.C. No. of Smt. Kusum Lata W/o Sh. Ram Pal Singh L.I.C. Agent R/o B-241, Shalimar Garden, U. P.
10. Please provide office address of Sarvotam Hi Tech Infra Developers Limited Company in Delhi/Ghaziabad, U. P.
11. Please provide the written statement of Sh. Ram Pal Singh L.I.C. Agent B- 241, Shalimar Garden, U. P.
12. Please provide the written statement of Smt. Kusum Lata L.I.C. Agent B- 241, Shalimar Garden, U. P"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.11.2023 stating as under:
"This is in response to your RTI application received on dated 19/10/2023 for seeking information under Right to Information Act, 2005. In this regard, this is to inform you that the information has been collected from the concerned court/branch of Shahdara District, U/s 6(1) (A) of RTI Act 2005, consisting of 01 page, which is self explanatory. Therefore, the duly stamped photocopy of the information is being sent to you.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Encl. dated 16.11.2023 is as under:
With reference to your letter ID No. as above, it is submitted that applicant is seeking copies of documents, hence, he/she may be asked to move CA application for the same is she/he is a party in the case."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.12.2023. The FAA order is Not on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-Page 2 of 7
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Shailender Sharma, PIO-cum-Senior Judicial Assistant and Ms. Mamta Dhawan, Dealing Assistant (RTI Branch), attended the hearing in person.
5. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
6. The respondent submitted that a suitable reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 17.11.2023. He further reiterated the contents of his written submission.
7. A written submission has been received from Shri Shailender Sharma, PIO-cum-Senior Judicial Assistant, vide letter dated 26.05.2025, informing as under:
"PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION:
1. It is submitted that an RTI application in the name of Ms. Rekha, was received in this office vide Diary no. 2868 dated 19.10.2023 through speed post. In this said application the applicant has requested for certified copies of the documents in suit no. 412/2023 Rekha Vs Ram Pal Singh including certain cheques and other documents along with written statements etc. The RTI application was registered as I.D. No. 1128 dated 19/10/2023. The photocopy of the same is Annexure 'A'.
2. It is submitted that the Civil Suit no. 412/2023 was pending in the court of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, the then Ld. ADJ-01, Shahdara District, Delhi and hence, the RTI application was sent to the concerned court. The PIO received the reply/information from the said court. It is submitted that the relevant portion of the reply received is as under:
With reference to your letter ID no. 1128, it is submitted that applicant is seeking copies of documents, hence, he/she may be asked to move CA applicaiton for the same if she/he is a party in the case. Copy of the Reply received from the C/o Ld. ADJ-01, SHD,KKD, Delhi. is Annexure 'B'.
The above reply was sent to the applicant vide this office letter No. 10255/RTI/SHD/Delhi/20230/1128 dated 17/11/2023. The copy of the same is Annexure C'.
3. It is submitted that later on an open envelope bearing document diary No. 1412 dt. 24.01.2024, addressed to the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Shahdara District, Delhi was received on 25.01.2024 vide endorsement of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, East District. The envelope contained a photocopy of a document titled as 'Appeal U/s 19 (1) of Page 3 of 7 RTI Act 2005 titled Rekha W/o Lt. Sh. Mukesh Kumar Vs Ram Pal Singh 2.
Kusum Lata 3. Ramesh Kumar-Il with heading "Ist Appeal before Hon'ble Delhi High Court". It is pertinent to mention here that the document so received was only a photocopy and did not bear original signature of the appellant on this said document or any of the document attached. copy of the Appeal is Annexure "D".
It is further submitted that Sh. Devender Kumar Ld. Judge Family Court-01, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, is the First Appellate Authority of Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Since the applicant preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, New Delhi, and only photocopy was received in this office hence, the photocopy was also sent to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, New Delhi vide no. 1255/RTI Appeal /SHD/KKD/Delhi/2024 dated 12.02.2024. Annexure 'E' is the copy of Letter. A copy of this letter was also sent to the appellant.
It is pertinent to submit that earlier also a similar envelope bearing diary no. 2989 dt. 08.11.2023 containing an appeal U/s 19 (1) of RTI Act 2005 Titled Rekha W/o Lt. Sh. Mukesh Kumar Vs PIO with heading "Appeal before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, New Delhi" was received in this office. The aforementioned appeal was sent to Hon'ble Delhi High Courts, New Delhi vide letter No. 10778/RTI Appeal/SHD/KKD/Delhi/2023 dated 01.12.2023. Annexure 'F' is the copy of letter.A copy of this letter has already been sent to the appellant. It is further submitted that no other appeal was received in this office in respect of RTI Application I.D.No.1128/2025 of Ms. Rekha and the photocopy received could not be processed in this office.
PARA-WISE REPLY TO THE APPEAL:
1. In reply to para no.1 of the instant appeal filed by the appellant, it is submitted that the appellant has mentioned that the case no. 412/2023 Rekha Vs S. Ram Pal Singh was dismissed by Hon'ble Sh. Ramesh Kumar-II ADJ Karkardooma Court Delhi, but no notice was issued to the respondent to file the reply/affidavit before the Hon'ble court. It is further submitted that it is the prerogative of the Hon'ble court to decide the case on its own merits and in case the appellant is not satisfied, then the approriate remedy is to file a judicial appeal. It is further submitted that the appellant wants to move RTI against the order.
2-4. In reply to para no.2 to 4 of the instant appeal filed by the appellant, it is submitted that the appellant has mentioned that no notice to the respondent was issued by the Hon'ble Court in her civil suit No. 412/2023, in this regard, it is further submitted that this shows that the appellant herein by virtue of the instant appeal before the Hon'ble CIC wants to challenge the order passed by the Hon'ble ADJ Karkardooma Court Delhi. It is further submitted that the present appeal is filed in a misconcieved manner and is devoid of any merits and hence liable to be dismissed.
5-6. In reply to para no.5 & 6 of the instant appeal filed by the appellant, it is submitted that the appellant has mentioned that section 18 (3) a,b,c,d,e,f of RTI act 2005 & Section 19 (8b) were not implemented by Hon'ble ADJ Page 4 of 7 Karkardooma Court Delhi vide court order dated 05-10-2023, which is totally absurd and is liable to be outrightly rejected being out of context submissions. It is further submitted that the prayer for issuing notice to the respondent in civil suit to pay the amounts to the applicant with interest in the present appeal before this Hon'ble Forum is also not permissible since it pertains to the civil matter, which already disposed off by the concerned court.
7. Reply to this para is given in the following para (9-13).
8. In reply to para no.8 of the instant appeal filed by the appellant, it is submitted that the appellant has herself mentioned that she had filed first appeal dated 06-12-2023 before Hon'ble Delhi High Court praying for issuing the order to the respondent to pay the amount Rs. 1000000/- to the applicant with interest but no response, which clearly shows that appellant has not filed any appeal before the 1 Appellant Authority of this office. Since the appellant herein has herself clearly mentioned that appeal has been filed by her before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court hence this office is unable to comment any further on the status of that appeal of the appellant. It is further submitted that the photocopy of Appeal filed by Ms. Rekha before Hon'ble High Court, which was received in this office on dated 25.01.2024 was also sent to APIO Delhi High Court by this office and intimation thereof was also sent to Ms. Rekha/Appellant vide letter No. 1255/RTI/Appeal/SHD/KKD/Delhi/2024 dated 12.02.2024. It is further submitted that appellant in this para has clearly mentioned that she has moved an appeal under RTI Act before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for getting the relief/order issued against the respondent (LIC Agent) for payment of amount of Rs. 1000000/- to the applicant with interest, which clearly shows that appellant is filing the appeals under RTI Acts to get the relief prayed by her in the Civil Case No. 412/2023 which was already disposed off by the Court of Ld. ADJ-01, Shahdara District vide order dtd. 05.10.2023 (as already mentioned by the appellant in her RTI Application as well as present appeal before this Commission).
7,9-13. In reply to para no. 7,9,10,11,12 & 13 of the instant appeal filed by the appellant, it is submitted that the appellant has mentioned LIC & other authorities have not provided her certain documents and by virtue of the RTI Application and appeals the appellant wants to circumvent the authority of the court and she is only trying to overreach the decision of the judicial authority. It is further submitted that there are specific provisions for obtaining certified copies of the documents from the judicial record of the court and they should be followed for obtaining the copies of any record which is under the control/custody of the court.
It is further submitted that the provision of providing certified copies of record from the judicial file is governed by the specific provisions of Chapter 5-B Vol. V of Delhi High Court Rules.
It is further submitted that vide no. 162/rules/DHC dated 06.05.2019, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, read with Article 235 of the Page 5 of 7 Constitution of india and all other enabling provisions have made Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008.
It is further submitted that Rule 7(iv), (v), (vi) and Rule 9 (x) of the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008 are clearly applicable to the RTI application of the present appellant and she was clearly provided this information that she should move CA application for obtaining the copy since she is a party in the case no. 412/2023., further Rule 7(iv), (v), (vi) and Rule 9
(x) of the District Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2008 in this regard are as under:
"7 (iv) The information amounts to instrusion in the judicial work of any court".
"7(v) The information amounts to overreaching a decision of any judicial body which was authorized to provide the information but has declined to do so. "7(vi) The information to be sought relates to a judicial proceeding, or judicial functions or the matters incidental or ancillary thereto. "9(x) No information can be provided relating to any judicial proceeding under this act."
PRAYER:
It is prayed that the prayer made by the appellant before this Hon'ble Commission are misplaced and misconceived since she has prayed that respondent (LIC agent etc who are respondent in the civil case no 412/2023) may be directed to file reply of the affidavit with certified copies of document. The second and third prayer of the appellant for directing the respondent (LIC agent) to pay amount of Rs 1000000/- along with interest and further to pay compensation for damage, harassment/ mental agony are also misplaced and misconceived and the relief so claimed is not concerned with this department.
It is further submitted that the appellant wants to challenge the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Ld ADJ 01 Shahdara District in case no. 412/2023 wherein the appellant was the petitioner and Mr. Rampal Singh LIC agent was the respondent (as submitted by the appellant herself). It is hence, prayed that the present appeal is not maintainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost since it is only an attempt to circumvent the judicial order passed by the judicial court in a civil case. It is further prayed that a suitable cost may be imposed on the appellant for wasting the precious time of this Hon'ble Commission as well as the other authorities. Prayed accordingly.
A copy also sent by post to the appellant."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujrat and Another [(2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 702], wherein it has been held as under:Page 6 of 7
"41. 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 effective machinery for having access to information or obtaining certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reason for which the certified copies are required, we do not find any justification for invoking 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.
42. We summarise our conclusion:
42.1. 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 reason 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, the overriding effect of the RTI act would not apply.
42.2. The information to the accessed/certified office 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."
9. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. Since an alternate efficacious remedy of obtaining the desired information through the procedure established under Delhi High Court Rules, is already available with the Appellant, without resorting to the RTI Act, the Commission upholds the reply furnished by the Respondent. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)