Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 5]

Central Information Commission

Shri Omkar Prasad Maheshwari vs High Court Of Delhi, New Delhi. on 31 December, 2009

                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                 Complaint No CIC/WB/C/2008/00230 dated: 14.02.2008
                 Right to Information Act 2005-Section 18(1)(b) & (d)

Complainant:      Shri Omkar Prasad Maheshwari
Respondent:         High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
                            Decision announced 31.12.'09


Facts: -

The Commission has received a complaint from Shri Omkar Prasad Maheshwari of Shahadra, Delhi, that his two requests dated 21.11.2007 and 13.12.2007 under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information on his petition No. 14997/06 filed before the High Court of Delhi, has not been responded to by the PIO of Delhi High Court.

Having admitted the complaint under Section 18(1)(b) & (d) of the RTI Act, the Commission served notice on 28.08.2009 on the PIO High Court of Delhi for furnishing comments on the complaint. However, as per the available records no such comments have been received from the PIO, High Court of Delhi.

Decision From a perusal of the facts available on the record, however, it stands established that the request of the complainant has indeed been replied to by the PIO, Delhi High Court, New Delhi by a letter dated 28.11.2007, in which the complainant was advised to submit the prescribed application fee payable to the Registrar General High Court of Delhi and not to the Accounts Officer Delhi. The Second RTI application of the complainant dated 13.12.2007 has also been responded to by the PIO High Court of Delhi on 16.01.20087 in which the complainant has again been advised to file the application as per the prescribed fee payable to the Registrar General High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.

1
"Prescribed" as mentioned under Section 2(g) means "prescribed by rules made under this Act by the appropriate Government or the Competent authority as the case may be". Under section 2 (e)(iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 the Chief Justice of High Court is the 'Competent Authority' so designate, and hence the Rules framed to carry out the provisions of this Act regarding the fee payable under Sub Section (1) of Section 6 and under subsection (1) of section 7 is in accordance with the Right to Information Act, 2005. In light of above, the present complaint is therefore, unsustainable and is dismissed.
Announced this thirty-first day of December 2009. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner) 31-12-2009 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.
(PK Shreyaskar) Jt. Registrar 31-12-2009 2