Central Information Commission
Rekha vs High Court Of Delhi on 17 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/HCDEL/A/2024/107761
Ms. Rekha ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO,
High Court Of Delhi
2. PIO,
O/o Principal District and Sessions Judge
Shahadra District, Karkadooma Courts ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.07.2025
Date of Decision : 15.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.12.2023
PIO replied on : 31.01.2024
First Appeal filed on : 23.01.2024
First Appellate Order on : 22.03.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 11.03.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1. "That case No. 412/2023 Rekha v/s. Sh. Ram pal Singh LIC Agent was dismissed by Hon'ble Sh. Ramesh Kumar -II ADJ Karkardooma Court Delhi vide court order dated 05-10-2023. But no notice was issued to the respondent to file the reply / affidavit before the Hon'ble court by ADJ Karkardooma Court Delhi. Copy of the court order dated 05-10-2023 is enclosed.
2. That Applicant paid the court fee Rs. 50/- to the Karkardooma Court vide receipt dated 31-05-2023. But no notice was issued to the respondent by Hon'ble ADJ, Karkardooma Court Delhi vide court order dated 05-10-2023. Copy of the court fee Rs. 50/- dated 31-05- 2023 is enclosed.
3. That applicant paid the Amount Rs. 500000/- to the respondent Sh. Ram Pal Singh LIC Agent vide cheque No. 813447 dated 19-12-
2014 and Rs. 500000/-vide cheque no. 813449 dated 21-03-2015 State Bank of India new Delhi. But no notice was issued to the respondent by Hon'ble ADJ Karkardooma Court Delhi. Copy of the cheque dated 19-12-2014 and 21-03-2015 are enclosed.
Page 1
4. That respondent Sh. Ram Pal Singh LIC Agent paid the amount Rs. 10000/-to the applicant vide cheque no. 667386 dated 11-07- 2022 Canara Bank New Delhi. But no notice was issued to the respondent to file the reply / affidavit before the court by Hon'ble Sh. ADJ Karkardooma Court Delhi.
5. That all the officer of Delhi High Court and their subordinate court were directed to follow the provision of RTI act 2005 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide notification no. 162/ Rules / DHC dated 06- 05-2009. But the provision of RTI Act 2005 were not implemented by Hon'ble ADJ Karkardooma Court Delhi vide court order dated 05- 10-2023. High court rules dated 06-05-2009 is enclosed.
6. That section 18 (3) a,b,c,d,e,f of RTI act 2005 were not implemented by Hon'ble ADJ Karkakrdooma Court Delhi vide court order dated 05-10-2023. Therefor implement the section 18 (3) a,b,c,d,e,f of RTI act 2005 and issued notice to the respondent to pay the amount Rs. 1000000/- to the applicant with interest.
7. Section 19(8b) of RTI act 2005 was not implemented by Hon'ble ADJ Karkardooma Court Delhi vide court order dated 05-10-2023. Therefor implement the section 19(8b) of RTI act 2005 and issued notice to the respondent to pay the cost and compensation Rs. 2000000/- to the applicant for the damage/ harassment/ mental agony of the applicant."
PIO, Delhi High Court transferred the instant RTI Application to PIO, Karkardooma Court vide letter dated 09.01.2024.
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.01.2024.
PIO, Karkardooma Court vide letter dated 31.01.2024 stated as under:
"..This is in response to your RIT application received by way of transfer from A.P.I.O. Delhi High Court, New Delhi, for seeking information under Right to Inforination 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.
With reference to your Letter No. 448/RTI/SHD/KKD/Delhi/2024/1147 dated 12.01.2024, it is respectfully submitted that no information has been sought by the applicant in Point No. 1 to 7 of his application and as far as point no. 8 is concerned, it is submitted that Inspection of the case file can be done during 10.00 to 04.00 p.m. during court working hours as per rules..."
The FAA, Karkardooma Court vide order dated 22.03.2024 stated as under:
"..RTI application, reply furnished by the PIO and present appeals are perused.
Page 2 The department in response to the RTI application had supplied the information to the appellant herein thereby informing that no information has been sought in query No.1 to 7 and in response to query No.8 it has been informed that 'Inspection of the case file can be done during 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM during court working hours, as per rules.
Queries are made from the appellant as to what information she had sought in her application and what are the grounds of her present appeal.
The appellant submits that Mr. Ramesh Kumar II, Ld. ADJ 01, Shahdara District vide his order dtd. 05.10.2023 has dismissed her case bearing No. 412/2023. The appellant further submits that Ld. Court has not issued notice to the respondents in that case. The appellant prays that her case be re-opened and notice be issued the the respondent/LIC agent by making him party in this case. After due deliberations, this forum has tried to inform the appellant that the appellant by virtue of the RTI applications and appeal wants to challenge the order dtd. 05.10.2023 passed by the Ld. ADJ 02, Shahdara District, which is not permissible under RTI Act, 2005.
Perusal of the record and the appeal shows that the relief sought by the appellant is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the trial court and the same is not covered under the ambit of the 'information' as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. As per Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008:
Rule 7. Exemption from disclosure of information: The Public Information Officer or the Assistant Public Information Officer may not provide the information to the applicant on the following grounds:
(iv) The information amounts to intrusion in the judicial work of any court.
(v) XXXXXXX
(vi) The information to be sought relates to a judicial proceeding, or judicial functions or the matters incidental or ancillary thereto.
Considering the above facts, the relief as sought by the appellant by way of his present appeal under RTI Act, cannot be granted by this Forum. Consequently both the appeals, as filed are dismissed. Copy of this order be supplied free of cost to PIO as well as the appellant...."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 1207.2025 has been received from the CPIO, Karkardooma Court, Delhi and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..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 no notice was issued to the respondent Sh. Ram Pal Singh LIC Agent to provide the reply of RTI application dated 27.12.2023 by Hon'ble ADJ Karkardooma Court Delhi vide court order dated 20.01.2024.it is Page 3 submitted that the PIO received the reply/information to the RTI application from the court of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, the then Ld. ADJ-
01, Shahdara District, Delhi. The reply has already been provided to the applicant vide office letter No. copy of the same is Annexure C'. 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 appropriate remedy is to file a judicial appeal. It is further submitted that the appellant wants to move RTI against the order of court passed in Judicial proceedings. 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., in a misconceived manner and is devoid of any merits and hence liable to be dismissed.
It is further submitted that in the instant appeal filed by the appellant, she has mentioned that no notice was issued to the respondent Sh. Ram Pal Singh LIC Agent to provide the reply of RTI application dated 27.12.2023 by Hon'ble ADJ Karkardooma Court, Delhi., vide court order dated 20.01.2024, 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.
The contention of appellant 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 amount 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 has already been disposed of by the concerned court.
In reply to para no. 2 of the instant appeal filed by the appellant, it is submitted that above appeal dated 23.01.2024, she is referring to, is not related to RTI No. 1147 at all. That appeal pertains to RTI ID No. 1128, which was recently already disposed of by the Hon'ble CIC having File No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/103128 dated 13.05.2025 involving the same parties Rekha Vs PIO. The hearing of that case/appeal was held on 28.05.2025 and date of decision was 24.06.2025 and the appellant Rekha did not appear at hearing, which shows that she is mislead the Hon'ble CIC. It is submitted that both the appeals filed against RTI ID. No.1147, were dismissed on 22.03.2024 by the First Appellate Authority (RTI)/SHD/KKD/Delhi and also time barred for applying for Appeal before Hon'ble CIC. Copy of order annexure "F"..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Vikas Saddi, DR, Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ojha, AR, Ms. Gunjan Sindwanii, AOJ, Mr. Naveen Kumar,, SJA, Mr. Ankur, JA, Ms. Prachi Vashisht, Advocate- Delhi High Court and Ms. Mamta Dhawan Dealing Assistant -Karkardooma Court- participated in the hearing.
Ms. Prachi Vashisht placed on record the written submission on behalf of PIO the Delhi Court during course of proceedings.
Page 4 The Respondent reiterated the avermenst made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information as avvaible in their records.
PIO, Delhi High Court stated that the matter pertains to a civil suit decided by the Karkardooma Court and the High Court of Delhi has no role in it. It is averred that the PIO, High Court of Delhi is neither a proper or necessary party in the instant case.
PIO, Karkardooma Court reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the Appellant by virtue of the RTI applications and appeal wants to challenge the order dated. 05.10.2023 passed by the Ld. ADJ 02, Shahdara District, which is not permissible under RTI Act, 2005. She averred that a point-wise reply in reference to the queries raised by the Appellant has been duly provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)