Central Information Commission
Mr. Aseem Takyar vs High Court on 18 December, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001244, 1410, 1424, 1425 & 1437
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 18 December 2012
Date of decision : 18 December 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Aseem Takyar,
Plot No. 144, Phase - 1,
Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon,
Haryana - 122 016.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri R.K. Malik, PIO, was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard all these five cases together. Out of these, one case (1244) had been disposed off earlier. The case number 1410 being somewhat identical to that case, the Appellant did not want to pursue that case. Similarly, he also did not want to pursue the case number 1424 because the desired information had already been ordered to be provided in some other case. Thus, he wanted that only the case number 1425 and 1437 be taken up for hearing.
3. In the first of these two cases, he had wanted to know which of the two legal opinions given by two different advocates on his application for legal aid was considered stronger. The CPIO had responded by observing that he could not be expected to offer any such opinion or advice and, therefore, he did not consider the request to amount to information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In the second case, he had asked for the CIC/SM/A/2012/001244, 1410, 1424, 1425 & 1437 list of applications received on transfer in the High Court Legal Services Committee after 7 February 2012 and the number of applications on which opinion had been sought from empanelled advocates. He also wanted a copy of his application dated 9 December 2011 transferred by the Legal Services Authority to the High Court Legal Services Committee. The CPIO had informed him that they did not maintain any such lists. The Appellate Authority has endorsed the stand taken by the CPIO.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant reiterated his request for this information. In response, the respondent submitted that he could not be expected to give any opinion on the relative merit of the legal opinion received from the empanelled advocates on the application of the Appellant for legal aid. We tend to agree with the respondent. The CPIO can give only that information which already exists on paper. He cannot create new information. He cannot, for example, as in this case, given any opinion about which of the two legal opinions had a greater merit. Similarly, he cannot also say if the legal opinion given by one of the advocates (RK Gupta) amounted to contempt of court. Such opinion can either be given by a legal expert or by a competent court; certainly not by the CPIO. This takes us to the remaining information, namely, the list of applications received on transfer after 7 December 2012 and the legal opinion sought on some or all of those applications. Although the respondent contended that they might not have a compiled a list of such cases readymade with them, we would still like the CPIO to find out if there is any such list and, if found, to provide a copy to the Appellant. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to find out about the list of all the applications received on transfer after 7 February 2012 from the Legal Services Authority and, if found, to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order a copy of that along with the CIC/SM/A/2012/001244, 1410, 1424, 1425 & 1437 information, if any, regarding the number of cases out of these in which legal opinion from empanelled advocates had been sought.
5. All the cases had disposed of accordingly.
6 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/SM/A/2012/001244, 1410, 1424, 1425 & 1437