Central Information Commission
Mrdevender Singh vs Gnctd on 11 July, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2016/001378
Devender Singh v. PIO, Tis Hazari Courts
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 11.08.2015 Reply: 10.09.2015
SA: 17.05.2019 Hearing: 05.07.2016 Decision: 11.07.2016
Result: posted for hearing on 3.8.20162.30 PM
Parties Present:
1. Appellant is present. Public authority: Mr. Saryu Kumar - JJA (RTI)
FACTS:
2. Appellant through her RTI application had sought information relating to enquiry conducted by vigilance branch of Tis Hazari Court on his complaint etc. The CPIO gave a reply on 10/9/16 stating that point number 6 and 7 are not information and gave information on rest as available which was upheld by FAA. Appellant thereafter approached the Commission. Decision :
3. The appellant, Mr. Devender Singh says as follows:
I am defendant in a property case no. 272/2005 in the court of Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Tis Hazari. It was dismissed as withdrawn on 4/05/2006. I secured certified copies of the order. Later, I wanted some more document copies from this case file. I filed a Copy Application under the court procedure and it was returned seeking goshwara number of the file. I failed in all my attempts to secure that number for 7 years and on 12/8/2013, I filed an RTI request seeking goshwara number. The PIO refused saying that the case is pending. As case was dismissed as withdrawn, this is wrong, false and misleading denial by PIO.
When I filed the first appeal, I was called more than 10 times. FAA, on 19/02/2014, stated that in spite of efforts, the file could not be traced and also claimed that they are exempted from disclosure under Delhi District Court (RTI) Rules 2008, the goshwara number was not mentioned by the Ahlmad in the goshwara register, and hence, requested information could not be supplied. FAA recorded that since file could not be traced; only available information was given and dismissed the appeal saying there are no merits. Then I have filed complaint before the high court which has marked it to the district court.
The district judge has constituted an enquiry committee with number 1/2014. During enquiry, they could trace the file but some of the judicial order sheets are still missing from that file. I was asked to give original certified copies of the orders by the enquiring judge. I have submitted them, which was recorded as part of my statement. When I sought return of copies given by me, I was asked to file a RTI request. I have filed RTI request on 22/05/2015 seeking copy of enquiry report, the process of taking back my certified copies and copy of index page. It was refused. I think it is harassment and breach of my Right to Information.
I filed first appeal on 07/07/2015. The PIO did not give information claiming exemption under Section 7 (xii) of Delhi District Courts (RTI) rules, 2008. The FAA on 21/08/2015 agreed with the PIO and dismissed my application. On 12/08/2015, I filed another application on the oral advice of FAA. Again, PIO refused. I filed another first appeal on 6/10/2015. It was decided after 3 months on 8/01/2016 but order copy was not given. 45 days after the decision, the copy of the order was dispatched on 26/02/2016, which rejected my appeal. When I asked the copy of rules of exemption under this RTI application, this was also denied. I was advised to download it from the internet. According to this rule, I should get the final fact finding result. This was also not given.
Inspite of my several trips to the court, I was not allowed to meet anybody, nor given copy of order from my own case file.
3. Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, FAA has written in Para. No. 5 that "details of the missing order sheets cannot be provided under RTI Act. The RTI Act relates to right to information and to secure access to information under the control of public authority. The information should exist but in case of missing order sheets, the details not available cannot be provided. Moreover, the documents can be obtained from the copying agency and not through RTI". It appears that the learned FAA, a judge, has tried to take advantage of missing files to her advantage and to deny the information to appellant. Even if this unreasonable contention of FAA is agreed, she should have released copies of two judicial orders supplied by the appellant back to him. The FAA, being learned judge has acted in gross violation of RTI of appellant; it is against the law and justice.
4. The PIO Ms. Usha Arora says that she joined as PIO in 2014, November end. She replied on 12th June 2015, 10th September, 2015 and 20th May, 2016 for different RTI applications flatly rejecting the information under exemption rule 7 (xii). The information sought was the fact finding report which according to her could not be given because it is under consideration by disciplinary authority. She claims, according to C.C. Conduct Rules information cannot be given as it is under consideration. After repeated questioning, the PIO has come out with the information that the enquiry report was submitted by Mr. A.K. Agrawal, Civil Judge1 on 19.12.2014, but its copy was not given to appellant. The report was produced before the commission. This confirms that order sheets dated 7.11.2005, 6.12.2005, 16.01.2006, 21.1.2006, 24.1.2006 and 4.5.2006 were missing from the main case file. However, the orders dated 7.11.2005 and 4.5.2006 could be traced while remaining four orders are still untraceable.
Appellant Mr. Devender was directed to produce certified copies of orders dated 7.11.2005 and 4.5.2006 which he filed. These are the only two documents which the enquiry officer claims to have recovered. It is pathetic that appellant was not given back his own certified copies by the public authority. He was asked to file an RTI request for procuring his own orders. This is yet another harassment and denial of his RTI. He filed a RTI to know the process of recovering the order copies given by him. The tragedy is that this RTI application was also rejected by PIO on 10.9.2015. FAA also rejected this.
5. The Commission is surprised at the way appellant was harassed for more than 2 years by the PIO, FAA and the public authority. The PIO has refused to give final fact finding report, which has to be given according to exemption under Rule 7(xii) of Delhi District Court RTI Rules which she quoted in all her orders to refuse the information. Without applying mind, even FAA has refused to give on this ground. Rule 7(xii) of Delhi District Court (RTI) Rules, 2008 clearly imposes a restriction on access to information held by or under the control of public authority, which is prima facie inconsistent with the RTI Act. Therefore, in accordance with Section 22 of the RTI Act, the provisions of the RTI Act shall override such rule which restricts the RTI of citizens in violation of section 8 & 9 of RTI Act.
6. It is pertinent to mention that under section 22 of RTI Act, the provisions of RTI Act shall have over riding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent with any other law for the time being in force. Thus as per section 22 of the RTI Act, the RTI Act will override other law which is inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act and accordingly, Rule 7(xii) of Delhi District Court (RTI) Rules being an antithesis to disclosure of information envisaged under RTI Act will be a stumbling block to disclosure. Insertion of a non obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act was a conscious choice of the Parliament to safeguard the citizens' fundamental right to information from unreasonable denials by public authorities.
7. Mr. Devender, appellant, is a victim of criminal assault by 9 people, in which he was injured, lost his mobile, Rs. 1 lakh and documents; He filed a complaint but to his surprise he found that the court has handed over the copy of the entire judicial file of the court to the accused persons and helped them to procure bail without following any procedure; He wanted to know under what rules the copies were produced to the accused and what action was taken on this illegal act. This was again refused.
8. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide
a) Certified copies submitted by appellant during enquiry, ie, judicial orders dated 7.11.2005 and 4.5.2005
b) Provide certified copy of enquiry report dated 19.12.2014 along with statements of parties and action taken report thereon,
c) To inform the appellant what action was taken, enquiry conducted, responsibility fixed for missing of important judicial orders from the judicial file of the court and if action is not taken, why is it not taken,
d) facilitate appellant inspection of the file as available on 12.07.2016 at 2:30 pm and provide certified copies of documents selected by the appellant free of cost.
9. The Commission also directs the PIO Ms. Usha Arora to showcause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against her for refusing every RTI application and harassing the applicant within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. The Commission directs public authority to explain why the public authority should not be ordered to pay suitable compensation to the appellant for harassing him for the last 2 years, denying his legitimate RTI, denying his own certified copies taken from him etc. within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. This case is posted for hearing on August 3 rd, 2016 for compliance/compensation/penalty notices.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Dinesh Kumar) Deputy Registrar Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, O/o Distt. & Session Judge, RTI (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi110054.
2. Shri Devender Singh H. No. 315, Nr. Subhash Chowk, VPO Bakhtawarpur, Delhi110036.