Central Information Commission
Shri Prasad Y.N. vs High Court Of Delhi on 17 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/001278 dated 24-7-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Prasad Y.N.
Respondent: High Court of Delhi
Decision announced: 17.12.2009
FACTS
By an application of 2-5-2008 Shri Prasad YN of Munirka, New Delhi applied to the CPIO, High Court of Delhi seeking the following information:
'1. Information kindly be provided that in civil writ petition, No. 9074 of 2004 date of decision 7.12.2007, whether the respondent management in the case was issued notice by the Hon'ble Court for appearing on held DOH on the dated 5.12.2007. If yes, a certified copy of the said notice kindly be provided.
2. In the said above case of writ petition No. 9074 of 2007, kindly the information be provided for deciding the case only on/in single date of hearing, without the presence of either the respondent management or the applicant /petitioner and without allowing opportunity of hearing through arguments of both party as such was not possible in the district labour Court as written arguments of the applicant has been overlooked.
3. The certified copies of applicant / petitioner is filed as writ petition no. 9074/ 2007 kindly be provided under RTI i.e. index, memo of parties, list of dates, facts, affidavit, petitions, vakalatnama and other related documents in petition which is filed by the advocate on behalf of the applicant/ petitioner.
4. Information also kindly be provided in the L. P. A. No. 146 of 2008, C. M. No. 4010-11/2008 that whether the respondent management was also issued notice by the Hon'ble Court to appear on the dated 17.3.2008 and dated 25.3.2008. In response to said issued notice whether respondent management appeared on dated 17.3.2008 and dated 25.3.2008.
5. Information kindly be provided for not allowing the arguments of both party of/on the case, deciding the said LPA No. 146 of 2008 in only one/ two hearing, not allowing written arguments submission in District Labour Court and order / facts of the case in depth with sensitivity.
6. Kindly provide the certified copy under RTI to the applicant the filed petition of LPA No. 146 of 2006 (filed 1 by the advocate on behalf of the applicant/ petitioner) i.e. application, memo of parties, list of dates, affidavit, vakalatnama, the petition/ prays made facts of the case and related documents of the filed petition, the entire.
7. Kindly provide the name of the 1st appellate authority (under RTI), address.
8. Kindly provide information that whether any person can directly file any civil or criminal case before High Court. Kindly provide detail information that how one poor/ weak person 'amicus/ emicus currcu' (sic) benefit can avail from the court (HC) to get Justice & Proper hearing.
9. Kindly provide information that whether 'National Judicial Council' has come into full existence? If yes, kindly provide the complete address and name of the Hon'ble Judicial Officers address or any others under whose headship/ control the said NJC functions. Kindly also provide information on the procedures of approaching to said NJC and the kind/ types of cases dealt with, the expanses involved, minimum and maximum time taken for decision etc."
With this Shri Prasad had appended a fee of Rs. 10/-. In response Shri Prasad received the following information from PIO Shri P. S. Chaggar dated 10.7.2008:
Question Reply No. 1-6 The information sought cannot be provided to you as the same is specifically barred under Rule 6 of Delhi High court (Right to Information) rules, 2006. However, you are informed that you can inspect/ obtain the copies of documents in a judicial case in terms of provisions contained in Chapter 5-A and 5- B of Delhi High Court Rules & Orders, Volume- V.
7. Registrar (Admn.) Room No. 101, Block 'A', High Court of Delhi, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi-110003 is the appellate authority under Right to Information Act in Delhi High Court.
8. An eligible applicant is entitled to legal aid in respect of cases filed in Delhi High Court from Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, Ch. No. 35 & 36, Lawyers' Chambers Building, Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003.
9. Information sought is outside the domain of Public Information Officer of High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.2
In the meantime Shri Prasad had moved an appeal on 3.6.2008 before the appellate authority c/o Registrar General High Court of Delhi complaining that he had received no response. In fact a response had been sent to Shri Prasad on 5.6.2008 informing him that "you are required to make an application in Form 'F' (copy enclosed) along with a fee of Rs. 50/- either in cash or pay/ postal order in the name of Registrar General to be deposited with the Cashier of this Court." Shri Y. N. Prasad had then moved another appeal on 14.6.2008 in which he had pleaded as follows:-
"1. The grounds for obtaining information specified above in subject under RTI Act, 2005.
2. Photocopy of the 1st RTI application vide has been sent by speed post mail on dated 2.5.2008 to CPIO/ PIO/RTI, c/o Registrar, Delhi High Court, is enclosed/ attached her with for the needful and meeting the requisites of Form-F and also self explanatory in contents.
3. As per RTI, 2005 provisions too there is no fee chargeable for 1st appeal in RTI."
It would appear that the CPIO's letter of 10.7.2008 is, in fact, a response to the appeal of 14.6.2008. Appellant's prayer before us in second appeal is as below:-
"The PIO, even after lapse of RTI stipulated time of 30 days, delayed 69 days, and even then denied the requisite RTI information's transparently/ properly.
The appellate authority too did not direct to PIO for providing needed information's by having delayed 06 days and yet not provided information's."
The appeal was heard on 17.12.2009. The following are present Respondents Shri Rajiv Bansal, Counsel, High Court of Delhi Shri Gurcharan Singh, Assistant Registrar Shri Sanjay Prakash Gupta, AOJ Shri Dibyaranjan Gouda, JJA Although informed of the date of hearing through our notice of 1.12.2009 Shri Prasad appeared before the Commission on 15.12.2009 with the submission that he would not be in a position to appear on the due date and pleaded in writing as follows:-
"2. That CPIO has not adhered to the stipulated RTI time of 30 days but has taken 69 days 'delays' to respond and 3 that also the information are denied by way of not giving the appropriately.
3. That appellant was/ has been asked by the appellant authority to pay Rs. 50/- for giving information under RTI Act, 2005 nowhere stipulates or requires such.
4. That CPIO's letter dated 10.7.2008, No. 18695 from para 01 to para 06. para No. 8 not appropriately provided information as per RTI application. And para No. 9 has been denied."
DECISION NOTICE The issue herein hinges on payment of fee. The Delhi High Court Right to Information Rules are clear in fixing the fee for RTI applications before High Court of Delhi at Rs. 50/-. Appellant's plea that this is in violation of the Act is unfounded since under the definition of "competent authority" it is the Chief Justice of the High Court in the case of the High Court who is the competent authority under Section 2 (e) (iii). The competent authority, in turn, makes rules to carry out the provisions of this Act under section 28 (1). These rules specifically cover the fee payable under sub section (1) of Section 6 and the fee payable under sub Section (1) of Section 7. Nevertheless, we find that information has indeed been provided by PIO Shri P. S. Chaggar in his letter of 10.7.2008 insofar as it was accessible in his view under the RTI Act. If dissatisfied with this response appellant Shri Prasad is free to move an appeal before the first appellate authority contesting this response. Instead, his appeal contested only the question of fee since no first appeal was made after 10.7.2008, but only a second appeal before this Commission. Nevertheless, if he wishes to move an appeal under section 19 (1) before the appellate authority in the High Court of Delhi, appellant Shri Prasad is advised to first liquidate the full fee due under High Court Rules but in this matter his attention is also invited to the decision of this Commission in Full Bench in CIC/WB/A/2006/00839 and CIC/WB/A/2006/00900; Manish Khanna vs. High Court of Delhi, wherein we have ruled on what information comprised judicial functions of the High Court and what were its administrative functions. It was also examined whether such a determination can be made under the RTI Act, or by the Courts themselves under powers 4 that they exercise under the Constitution and hence the applicability of the Right to Information to the information of this nature held in the High Court.
It has also been noted that in fact the initial response to the request of 2.5.2008 has been sent only on 5.6.2008 and that was after submission of the first appeal. Since the requisite fee had not been paid it was indeed not mandatory for the CPIO to take cognizance of the application. Nevertheless, since it is the duty of the CPIO to assist an applicant it would have been appropriate for the CPIO to inform the appellant Shri Prasad forthwith that the fee paid by him was inadequate. This has been done only after the lapse for more than a month. While therefore, Shri P. S. Chaggar, CPIO cannot be held in default for this delay for the reason that the fee had not been paid, he is advised that in dealing with RTI applications a more responsive attitude is recommended. Learned Counsel for High Court of Delhi Shri Rajiv Bansal has assured us that in fact the system at present in operation in the High Court takes into account this requirement. This Appeal now stands dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 17-12-2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 17-12-2009 5