Central Information Commission
Shri Keshava Gupta vs Coal India Limited on 4 February, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/900755
Dated, the 04th February, 2010.
Appellant : Shri Keshava Gupta
Respondents : Coal India Limited
This matter was heard through videoconferencing (VC) on 05.01.2010 pursuant to Commission's notice dated 25.11.2009. Appellant, who was notified to be present at NIC VC facility at Dhanbad, was absent when the hearing commenced. Respondents ⎯ represented by the Appellate Authority and the CPIO ⎯ were present at NIC VC facility at Kolkata. Commission conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. The points raised in second-appeal by the appellant relate to his queries in his RTI-application dated 18.03.2009 at Sl.Nos.8, 9, 12(i) and 12(v).
Query at Sl.No.8: "Marks as assigned / obtained by the applicant against each criterion (i.e. EER, Experience and Interview) may be furnished in respect of all the 3 DPC mentioned above.
i) How many Mining discipline candidates selected for M-3 had their total EER marks equal to the total EER marks of the applicant? Separate details for all the 3 DPC may be furnished.
ii) How many Mining discipline candidates selected for M-3, had their total EER marks less than the total EER marks of the applicant? Again please furnish the lowest total EER marks of the selected candidate for M-3. Separate details for all the 3 DPC may be furnished.
iii) How many Mining discipline candidates selected for M-3 had their total EER marks more than the total EER marks of the applicant? Separate details for all the 3 DPC may be furnished.
iv) How many Excellent, Commendable, Adequate & Inadequate ratings in respect of the applicant were on record before each DPC, against 5 year relevant period considered by each DPC?
AT-04022010-07.doc Page 1 of 6
v) What was my track record on the day the interview in all the 3 DPC mentioned above? Whether it was inadequate / good / adequate / commendable / very good / excellent or outstanding?"
Decision:
3. Contrary to what the appellant has stated in his second-appeal petition, this item of query does not relate to marks obtained by the third-party, Shri A.K. Tewari.
4. It shall not be possible to give any directions in this matter.
Query at Sl.No.9: "Interview Marks as assigned to the applicant by each of DPC member, (without disclosing their names) and Duly certified copy showing marks assigned to the applicant for the Interview by each of the member of the DPC (who have taken my Interview) may be furnished. Separate details in respect of all the 3 DPC meetings as mentioned above is to be furnished."
5. Respondents stated that the combined marks given by the interviewers was already provided to the appellant and that no independent marks were given by each member of the Interview Board.
6. Appellant demanded that a certified copy of the Interview Mark-sheet as signed by the interviewers be provided to him.
Decision:
7. The expression "certified copy" in Section 2(j) of RTI Act has been often misunderstood as it has been frequently equated with the "true copy" or "Attested true copy". The term "certified copy" is to be understood in the sense it is found in the Indian Evidence Act, especially Sections 74, 76 and 79.
8. Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act states as follows:-
"Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officers with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed whenever such officer AT-04022010-07.doc Page 2 of 6 is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies."
9. A reading of this Section shows that a certified copy can be given out by a public officer authorized for this purpose; it can be given only for a public document which any person has a right to inspect; a legal fee is to be charged for giving out certified copy; a certificate is to be attached at the bottom of the document with seal, signature, etc.
10. The term "public document" for which certified copy is to be given out is explained in Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states as follows:-
"The following documents are Public documents-
(i) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts
(a) Of the sovereign authority,
(ii) Of Official bodies and the Tribunals, and
(iii) Of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country.
1. Public records kept in any State of private documents."
11. According to this Section, a public document, apart from being a record of the action of public officers ⎯ legislative, judicial or executive ⎯ can also be for public records kept of private documents.
12. While the first definition of public documents as records of action of public officers encompasses all records, documents, etc. which are produced as a result of the action of public officers, the second category, i.e. public records kept of private documents, bears explaining.
13. Courts have consistently held that public records kept of private documents do not encompass all information which passes into the hands of the public authority from private individuals. It refers specifically to those private documents which public official may be required to keep "for a memorial or permanent evidence of something written, said or done." (Guwahati High Court in Narattam Das Vs. Md.Masadharali Haribhuiyan) and includes such documents as original registered deeds about land or sales transactions, etc., land record details, Memoranda of Understanding or Memorandum of Incorporation as registered by the Registrar of Companies, Medico-Legal Records (post-mortem reports are not public documents), documents furnished AT-04022010-07.doc Page 3 of 6 to the Press Council of India, school records, records of nationalized banks, among others. Significantly, copies of private documents do not qualify to be public documents. (Narattam Das Vs. Md.Masadharali Haribhuiyan).
14. In sum, public record of private documents relate to those records which a public authority is enjoined by law to permanently retain in its original form. These do not and cannot include all and sundry documents handed over by private individuals to public authorities for specific purposes. As such, courts have held that Income Tax Returns are not public records of private documents and hence these are not public documents.
15. Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act states that certified copies of public documents including public records of private documents shall be accepted as original evidence in courts of law and shall be presumed to be true.
16. From this, it is quite obvious that certified copy has a definitive meaning as a legal expression defined in the Indian Evidence Act. The use of this expression in the RTI Act cannot be disconnected from its original meaning as contained in the Indian Evidence Act.
17. It follows from it that the eligibility of an RTI-applicant to take certified copies of any information will have to conform to the definition of certified copy in Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act and can relate only to such documents as mentioned in Section 74, i.e. public documents.
19. Section 2(j)(ii) of RTI Act speaks of an applicant's right to "taking notes, extracts or certified copies....". These wordings make it clear that each mode of disclosure of information, viz. "notes", "extracts" or "certified copies" is separate and independent. It follows from it that, given the type of documents demanded by an applicant, he shall be provided "extracts", "notes" or "certified copies" depending upon the nature of the document in question. In other words, while an applicant can take extracts and notes of any document, his right to take "certified copies" has to be decided in terms of documents which are liable to be given out as "certified copies" consistent with the definition of this expression as found in the Indian Evidence Act (Sections 74, 76 and 79). "Certified Copies" is an exact legal expression and cannot be used loosely as 'attestation of documents' or 'true copy' of any document. It is noteworthy that Section 2(j) of RTI Act does not AT-04022010-07.doc Page 4 of 6 authorize an applicant to receive "attested true copies" of a document but only its "extracts", besides allowing him to "take notes". Since certified copies can be given out only for certain category of documents as listed in the Evidence Act, it follows, that for all other categories of documents, a citizen can only claim "extracts" or "notes" and not their "certification" as "true copy".
20. In the light of the above, the appellant's demand for certified copies of his interview marks as per query at Sl.No.9 is for a document which satisfies the definition of public document of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and, therefore, deserves to be provided albeit in terms of the criteria laid-down under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act on payment of the legal fees to be charged by the respondents.
21. This may be provided to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order on his paying the legal fees under the above-mentioned Section of the Indian Evidence Act.
Query at Sl.No.12 (i): "Please confirm the name of the officer with whom above referred Review representation / appeal of the applicant (Sh Gupta) along with the above referred letter of CMD MCL, is filed / kept as on date."
Decision:
22. A photocopy of the note-portion of the file may be provided to the appellant, which will answer this query. Time ⎯ 2 weeks.
Query at Sl.No.12(v): "Has the decision been communicated to the applicant or CMD MCL till date? If yes please furnish a copy of the same."
Decision:
23. Respondents stated that contrary to the belief of the appellant that there was any such decision, no such decision exists in the records. This was principally because such decisions are made only when an officer is found to possess a service record which is graded below adequate. As the service record of this applicant was adequate, there was no need for such decision to be made by the Chairman, CIL.
24. As no information corresponding to this query exists, there shall be no obligation cast on the respondents to disclose it. AT-04022010-07.doc Page 5 of 6
25. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
26. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-04022010-07.doc Page 6 of 6