Delhi District Court
Sanjay Shangari vs Public Information Officer. on 15 March, 2018
: 1 : RTI Appeal No. 02/18 Sanjay Shangari Vs Public Information Officer. 15.03.2018 ORDER (ORAL)
Present : Ms. Ginni, Advocate (Enrol. No. D603/2017), proxy counsel for appellant.
Sh Ashwani Kumar Bahal, PIO (West) alongwith Sh Randhir Singh Dahiya, LDC.
Today also, the appellant is not present. It appears that the appellant has lost interest in prosecution of this appeal after supply of requisite information to him alongwith the reply.
I have perused the appeal carefully.
The information sought by the appellant by way of his RTI application was declined to be supplied being exempted under Rule 7(viii) of the Delhi District Courts (RTI) Rules, 2008. This response was qua query no. (a) & (b).
With respect to query no.(c), again the information was declined on the ground that it does not relate to District West, THC, Delhi.
File reveals that the appellant had merely sought information with respect to jurisdiction of Sr. Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge to hear the appeal under Section 104 CPC against the order by a Civil Judge passed while deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.
: 2 :Additionally, the RTI appellant sought information that if the Court of Senior Civil Judge has no such jurisdiction then the details of Courts having such jurisdiction be provided.
In continuation thereof, the information was sought as to which Court will be hearing his appeal filed as a lawyer on behalf of one Mst. Rukhsana that he filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Dwarka.
I may say that the appellant seems to have filed the appeal without realizing the fact that the appeal U/s 27(2) (e) & (f) of the RTI Act and pursuant to the same vide G.S.R, Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) were published.
As per Rule 3, the appeal shall contain the information provided in Rule 3(i) to (ix). There is apparent compliance of the above mentioned Rules but not in that order in which it is so reflected in Rule 3. Further, as per Rule 4 of the above rules, every appeal shall be accompanied by documents described in Rule (i) to (iii). Here also, there is apparent non compliance of all the entire Rule 4.
The non compliance vitiates the appeal and its maintainability. Nevertheless, this Forum has already commented on the merits of the appeal and is of the view that the PIO(West) had proceeded on an incorrect assumption but the omission is definitely not deliberate. During hearing of the appeal, the PIO(West) had actually ended up furnishing the requisite information sought for as is apparent from reply dated 9.3.2018 and also addressed simultaneously to the : 3 : appellant. The relevant Gazette Notification under Section 39(3) of Punjab Courts Act etc have been supplied with.
Under Rule 7(viii) of the above mentioned Rules, PIO is exempted from disclosing information which is not forming part of any record. In this case, the information exists in the form of above referred Notification. I am not of the view that any Penalty U/s 20 of RTI Act is required to be imposed as misconstruction of the legal provision by the PIO can not be said to be 'without any reasonable cause'.
In these circumstances, nothing further survives in this appeal. It stands decided and accordingly disposed of with caution to the PIO (West).
The second Appeal against this order may be filed in accordance of Section 19(3) to the CIC or SIC within 90 days from today.
Notice of this decision (copy) be provided to the appellant and the Public Authority i.e. in this case the PIO (West) in terms of Section 19(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Original file furnished by the PIO (West) be returned while RTI file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN ( MANISH YADUVANSHI ) COURT ON : 15.03.2018. Appellate Authority/ ASJ05 (West), THC, Delhi.
: 1 : RTI Appeal No. 03/18Sanjay Shangari Vs Public Information Officer.
15.03.2018 ORDER (ORAL) Present : Ms. Ginni, Advocate (Enrol. No. D603/2017), proxy counsel for appellant.
Sh Ashwani Kumar Bahal, PIO (West) alongwith Sh Randhir Singh Dahiya, LDC.
Today also, the appellant is not present. It appears that the appellant has lost interest in prosecution of this appeal after supply of requisite information to him alongwith the reply.
I have perused the appeal carefully.
The information sought by the appellant by way of his RTI application was declined to be supplied being exempted under Rule 7(viii) of the Delhi District Courts (RTI) Rules, 2008. This response was qua query no. (a) & (b).
With respect to query no.(c), again the information was declined on the ground that it does not relate to District West, THC, Delhi.
File reveals that the appellant had merely sought information with respect to jurisdiction of Sr. Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge to hear the appeal under Section 104 CPC against the order by a Civil Judge passed while deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.
: 2 :Additionally, the RTI appellant sought information that if the Court of Senior Civil Judge has no such jurisdiction then the details of Courts having such jurisdiction be provided.
In continuation thereof, the information was sought as to which Court will be hearing his appeal filed as a lawyer on behalf of one Mst. Rukhsana that he filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Dwarka.
I may say that the appellant seems to have filed the appeal without realizing the fact that the appeal U/s 27(2) (e) & (f) of the RTI Act and pursuant to the same vide G.S.R, Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) were published.
As per Rule 3, the appeal shall contain the information provided in Rule 3(i) to (ix). There is apparent compliance of the above mentioned Rules but not in that order in which it is so reflected in Rule 3. Further, as per Rule 4 of the above rules, every appeal shall be accompanied by documents described in Rule (i) to (iii). Here also, there is apparent non compliance of all the entire Rule 4.
The non compliance vitiates the appeal and its maintainability. Nevertheless, this Forum has already commented on the merits of the appeal and is of the view that the PIO(West) had proceeded on an incorrect assumption but the omission is definitely not deliberate. During hearing of the appeal, the PIO(West) had actually ended up furnishing the requisite information sought for as is apparent from reply dated 9.3.2018 and also addressed simultaneously to the : 3 : appellant. The relevant Gazette Notification under Section 39(3) of Punjab Courts Act etc have been supplied with.
Under Rule 7(viii) of the above mentioned Rules, PIO is exempted from disclosing information which is not forming part of any record. In this case, the information exists in the form of above referred Notification. I am not of the view that any Penalty U/s 20 of RTI Act is required to be imposed as misconstruction of the legal provision by the PIO can not be said to be 'without any reasonable cause'.
In these circumstances, nothing further survives in this appeal. It stands decided and accordingly disposed of with caution to the PIO (West).
The second Appeal against this order may be filed in accordance of Section 19(3) to the CIC or SIC within 90 days from today.
Notice of this decision (copy) be provided to the appellant and the Public Authority i.e. in this case the PIO (West) in terms of Section 19(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Original file furnished by the PIO (West) be returned while RTI file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN ( MANISH YADUVANSHI ) COURT ON : 15.03.2018. Appellate Authority/ ASJ05 (West), THC, Delhi.
Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADUVANSHI
YADUVANSHI Date: 2018.03.15