Central Information Commission
Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Punjab & Haryana High Court on 1 August, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/PUHHC/C/2025/103136.
Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal. निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Date of Hearing : 14.07.2025
Date of Decision : 30.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.01.2025
PIO replied on : 22.01.2025
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 27.01.2025
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.01.2025 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Strength of judges in Supreme Court and different High Courts
2. Number of judges in Supreme Court and different High Courts
3. Complete information on steps taken to fill vacancies of judges in High Courts according to sanctioned strength
4. Complete information on constituting 23 ^ (rd) Law Commission
5. Number of cases (a) pending (b) disposed (c) filed in Supreme Court respectively in last five years separately for each year
6. Number of cases (a) pending (b) disposed (c) filed in different High Courts respectively in last five years separately for each year
7. Number of cases (a) pending (b) disposed (c) filed in Lower Courts respectively in last five years separately for each year
8. Total capacity for prisoners combined in all Indian jails as at present
9. Total number of prisoners (a) convicted (b) under-trials in India as at present
10. Total number of under-trial prisoners in India as at present whose lodging in jails have exceeded the maximum imprisonment-punishment for the crimes for which they are in jails as under-trials Page 1
11. Complete information on steps taken to remove such ambiguity as referred in query (10) above
12. Complete information on steps taken for fast trials in courts mentioning details of ten olaca pending court cases in India"
The CPIO, Joint Registrar (Litigation) vide letter dated 22.01.2025 replied as under:-
"Your application was received in this Hon'ble Court from the CAPIO. Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Justice, New Delhi by way of transfer under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, your application has been transferred to multiple public authorities. Section 6(3) of the RTI Act is reproduced as under:-
*6(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,-
(1) which is held by another public authority, or
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer.
Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application." Further, Section 7(1) of the RTI Act regarding the application fee is reproduced as under:-
"7.(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under Section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:
Provided that where the information sought for concems the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within -eight hours of the receipt of the request.
It is clear from Section 7(1) that every public authority has the right to ask for the application fee as prescribed. Hence, vide this office letter No.75/PIO/HC dated 13.1.2025, you were asked to send the requisite application fee, as the application cannot be entertained by all the public authorities with single payment of ₹10/-. Thus, you are hereby asked to send application fee as prescribed under Rules 3 & 7 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Right to information) Rules, 2007 framed by this Hon'ble Court under Section 28 of the Act, if you want to obtain the information. Besides this, you were asked to send application fee and no additional fee as stated by you under Section 7(6) of the Act, has been demanded."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 2 Written submission dated 10.07.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
1. "..That application dated 1.1.2025 of the complainant was received through CAPIO, Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Justice, New Delhi by way of transfer on 13.1.2025 under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act").
2. That since the application of the complainant was received in this Hon'ble Court from the CAPIO, Govt of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi by way of transfer under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the same was transferred to multiple/other public authorities, hence, he was asked vide this office letter No.75/PIO/HC dated 13.1.2025 to send the requisite fee as per Rules. In this connection, Section 7(1) of the Act regarding application fee is reproduced as under:-
"7.(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under Section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:
Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request."
It is clear from Section 7(1) that every public authority has the right to ask for the application fee as prescribed. Hence, vide this office letter mentioned above, he was asked to send the requisite application fee, as the application cannot be entertained by all the public authorities with single payment of 10/- Thus, the complainant is required to send application fee as per rules 3 & 7 of RTI Rules framed by this Hon'ble Court, if he wants to obtain the information. Besides this, the complainant was asked to send applications fee and no additional fee under Section 7(6) of the Act, as stated by him.
5. The complainant was intimated in detail in this regard vide this office letter No. 145/PIO/HC dated 22.1.2025
6. That the public authority, that is, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh has framed Rules called 'High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 under Section 28 of the Act, which are reproduced as under:-
3. Any person seeking information under the Act, shall make an application in Form 'A' or on a plain paper or through electronic medium in English or Hindi or Punjabi, during office hours on any working day and shall deposit application fee as per Rule 7 by paying fee in cash or by adhesive court fee stamps/demand drafts / banker's cheque/Indian postal orders [2]for money order] in Page 3 favour of Registrar/Public Information Officer, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh or in any other form so determined by the competent authority from time to time.
No application shall be rejected on the ground that the same has not been made in Form "A".
Provided that a person, who makes a request through electronic form, ahall ensure that the requisite fee is deposited with the authorized person, in the manner mentioned above, within seven days of his sending the request through electronic form, failing which, the application shall be treated as dismissed. Provided further that the date of application in such case shall be deemed to be the date of deposit of the entire fee or the balance fee or deficit amount of the fee to the authorized person. 7(1) The application fee: A minimum of Rupees ten shall be charged as application fee (-A) The authorized person shall charge the fee for supply of information at the following rates:
7. That the respondent is bound to follow the rules framed by the Public Authority. It is crystal clear in the rules framed by the Public Authority that the authorized person, that is, the Public Information Officer shall charge the fee to deal with the application.
8. That the complaint is wholly misconceived and, therefore, the same may be dismissed in the interest of justice..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Mr. Naveen Kumar Sharma, Jt. Registrar (Rules) cum PIO- participated in the hearing.
The Complainant reiterated the averments made in his complaint and stated that he had filed instant RTI Application dated 01.01.2025 addressed to Department of Justice, New Delhi. He averred that he had sought information related to strength of judges, cases pending/filed/disposed in Supreme Court and different High Courts and matters related thereto. He further stated that the CPIO, Department of Justice, New Delhi vide letter dated 06.01.2025 transferred the instant RTI Application to CPIO/PIO(s) of all High Courts and Supreme Court. Joint registrar (Rules)-cum-Public Information Officer at High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide dated 13.01.2025 demanded additional RTI fees of rupees ten since my RTI application was transferred to multiple public-authorities. He averred that there is no provision under RTI Act wherein additional RTI fees can be demanded by transferee public-authority. He submitted that vide his email dated 21.01.2025 addressed at [email protected], he requested PIO at High Court of Punjab & Haryana to respond to his transferred RTI application point-wise as per provision of RTI Act with sought and related Page 4 documents but no response has been furnished in reference to his aforementioned email. He requested the Commission to direct the PIO to furnish information sought free of cost as per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. He insisted to impose penalty upon the PIO. Furthermore, he requested for compensation as per Section 19(8)(b) for man-hours and resources spent till the stage of CIC. In addition, considering the problems of RTI applicants and public authorities he requested for recommendation for Department of Personnel and Training- DoPT, under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, to have a uniform RTI fee of Rs 50 for all central and state public authorities. He further made a request to convert his instant complaint as Second Appeal.
The Respondent stated that the application of the Complainant was received in their office from the CAPIO, Govt of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi by way of transfer under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the same was transferred to multiple/other public authorities, accordingly, the Complainant was asked vide letter dated 13.1.2025 to send the requisite fee as per 'High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007' which are framed under Section 28 of the RTI Act. He stated that the Complainant was asked to send the requisite application fee, as the RTI application cannot be entertained by all the public authorities with single payment of 10/- or Rs 50/-.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case the Commission cannot accede to the Complainant's oral request to convert the instant matter into a Second Appeal for the reasons explained herein. The prerequisites for filing a Second Appeal have not been adhered to i.e., though RTI application was moved but as per records no first appeal was filed by the Complainant in reference to instant RTI Application and CPIO's reply. It is noted that to file a second appeal under the RTI Act, an applicant must have first filed a first appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Commission observes that the second appeal typically challenges the decision of the First Appellate Authority, either when dissatisfied with the outcome or when the FAA fails to provide a decision within the stipulated timeframe. Since no first appeal has been filed, the instant complaint cannot be considered as a second appeal, as it bypasses a mandatory step in the RTI appeal process.
Commission further observes that in a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the Commission primarily needs to determine if the information was denied with malafide intent or without reasonable cause. The focus is on whether the denial was intentional or unjustified, not necessarily on whether the information should have been provided by the PIO. It is noted that PIO has furnished response to the instant RTI Application within stipulated time frame as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Page 5 Further, the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the Respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section
20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they Page 6 provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaints u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
Moreover, at this stage the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of the Complainant for initiating penal action against the CPIO in the absence of any malafide ascribed on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Additionally, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is Page 7 warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission also notes that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009, Date of decision:
04.03.2010 (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another); had held as under:
"3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty."
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view no penal action is warranted under section 20 of the Act.
With regard to the prayer regarding compensation, the Commission is of the opinion that the issue raised is no more res-integra and it is settled position of law that the prayer for compensation cannot be entertained in complaint case since the compensation is payable in case of appeal only and not in the complaint. A reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 09.04.2013 in LPA 195/2011 titled as Union of India v. P. K. Srivastava, wherein, it was observed as under:-
"..5. It is quite evident from a perusal of the above referred provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act that compensation to the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered by him can be awarded by the Commission only while deciding an appeal filed before it. Similar power can also be exercised by the State Information Commission, while passing an order in appeal preferred before it. The aforesaid Section does not provide for grant of compensation merely on the basis of a complaint made to the Commission, without an appeal having been preferred to it.."
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that no malafide intent or denial due to any unreasonable cause can be attributed to the conduct of concerned PIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies.
Page 8 The Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)