Central Information Commission
Mr.Ved Parkash Singhmar vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 8 April, 2011
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/001145SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 8 April 2011
Date of decision : 8 April 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ved Prakash
S/o. Shri Gopi Chand,
House NO. 427, Sector 21,
Panchkula, Haryana.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Debts Recovery Tribunal -I,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Financial Services,
SCO3940, Sector 8C, Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh - 160 008.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Vijay Sharma, SO was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Appellant was present in the Panchkula studio of the NIC while the Respondent was present in the Chandigarh studio. We heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had sought several details including some statistical details about the cases filed before the DRT. The CPIO had provided the total number of cases filed and disposed of during this period. He had also stated that the remaining information was being maintained in several registers and it was not feasible to compile the voluminous information/records and that, therefore, he was welcome to visit the office of the DRT and inspect the CIC/LS/A/2010/001145SM relevant records to find out the desired information. The Appellate Authority had also endorsed the decision of the CPIO.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant insisted that he should be provided the information while the Respondent submitted that the desired information was not only voluminous but was not being maintained in the format in which it had been sought. He further submitted that the DRT had very limited manpower and compilation of the desired information from hundreds of case files would completely paralyse their working and totally divert their resources. On careful examination, we find that the Appellant had sought qualitative details about the cases, such as, stay granted and, if granted, in whose favour it had been granted, the name of the advocates to whom the stay had been granted and, finally, the number of days between the date of the publication of the auction notice and filing of the cases before the DRT. It is obvious that such details could be found only in individual case files. The CPIO cannot be expected to scrutinise each individual case to cull out such details.
5. Besides, the DRT performs judicial function. After deciding a case, it passes orders. A citizen has surely a right to get not only the copies of the orders but also the copies of the case files, unless of course making copies of the case files would disproportionately divert the resources of the Tribunal. In the present case, what the Appellant has sought is simply not maintained in that form.
6. Nevertheless, in regard to the number of cases filed and disposed of during the relevant period, we think that he should be allowed to look at the registers in which these data are maintained so that he can take notes of the title and other details of the cases. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date within 15 working days from the CIC/LS/A/2010/001145SM receipt of this order and to show him the relevant registers for his inspection. He should be allowed to take notes.
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/LS/A/2010/001145SM