S Muruganandham vs Drt-Iii, Chennai on 14 May, 2020

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

S Muruganandham vs Drt-Iii, Chennai on 14 May, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 08.11.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 10.06.2017and first appeal dated 18.07.2017:-

(i) The procedure followed by the Hon'ble DRT 3, Chennai when a petition Section 195 and 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section

19 (25) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 is filed.

Page 1 of 6

(ii) The procedure followed by the Hon'ble DRT 3, Chennai when a Counter claim under Section 19 (8) & (9) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 is filed.

(iii) The procedure followed when questions of maintainability arises in either of the above.

(iv) The actual position of the unnumbered Petition under Section 195 and 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the applicant in T.A.No.3 of 2015.

(v) The actual position of the unnumbered Counter Claim filed by the applicant in T.A.No.3 of 2015.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 10.06.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 01.07.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 18.07.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 10.08.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 08.11.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 08.11.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was unsatisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought, compensate the respondent for losses and sufferings and to pay a reasonable sum towards the costs incurred by the appellant to file the appeal.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.07.2017 stated that in reference to point (1) to (3) of the RTI Application, the applicant could obtain the information from the appropriate statutes, and information regarding point (4) & (5) of the RTI Page 2 of 6 Application could be obtained by following the procedures contemplated under DRT Rules 1993. The FAA vide his order dated 10.08.2017 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

Hearing on 26.07.2019:

4. The appellant was represented by Shri C. T. Selvamani, counsel and on behalf of the respondent Shri S. Ganesh Kumar, Recovery Officer cum CPIO, DRT-III, Chennai attended the hearing through video conference. 4.1. The Commission passed the following directions on 08.08.2019:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, accedes to the request of the respondent and directs the appellant to send a copy of his written submissions to the respondent. The respondent may file their counter submissions before the next date of hearing and mark a copy to the appellant so that the parties may be in a position to conclude their submission on the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the matter is hereby adjourned."

Hearing on 13.11.2019:

4.2. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri S Ganesh Kumar, Recovery Officer & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

Interim decision 24.12.2019 4.3. The Commission has passed the following observations/directions on 24.12.2019:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the respondent have not received the copies of appellant's written submissions. Both parties have exchanged their email ids during the course of hearing. The appellant is Page 3 of 6 advised to serve a copy of his written submission upon the respondent and the respondent is given a final opportunity to file their submissions in response to appellant's submissions. All written submissions must be exchanged amongst themselves and the resultant submission must reach the Commission within 21 days. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."

Hearing on 12.03.2020

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri S. Ganesh Kumar, the CPIO, Debt Recovery Tribunal -III, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not followed the rules and regulation prescribed by the statute. Moreover, the appellant stated that the respondent in response to his query about procedure for filing an interlocutory application had asked him to see the relevant statues. However, he argued that there was not a single section/provision in the entire Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 & Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 about filing of an interlocutory application. Regarding information sought on point no.

(iv) of the RTI application, he was intimated that he would get a copy of the order, but no order was received by him so far. He alleged that his petition was also unnumbered (just the Diary number and not registered from 2/10/2016), not returned and no orders received till date, while the main application T.A.No.3/2015 itself was disposed off on 2/11/2018. He also alleged that DRT did not follow the law and rules of numbering/registering, hearing and passing orders and communicating it to the appellant. This was very illegal and it must be rectified. 5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they were under obligation to provide information within the parameters of the RTI Act Page 4 of 6 and not beyond it. They further submitted that redressal of grievance, reasons for non-compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the RTI Act. Even then, the appellant being a party to the case had been informed that he could get the information by following the procedures contemplated under the DRT (Procedure) Rules 1993. They stated that if the appellant was aggrieved with the orders of the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal or non-compliance of the Rules/ arbitrariness in numbering/ violation/procedure, as alleged, he had to seek relief before the appropriate forum. The respondent argued that instead of seeking remedy before the appropriate forum, the appellant had been repeatedly contending the same issues before this Commission and trying to interrogate the CPIO/FAA beyond their purview, which is nothing but harassment of CPIO/FAA. Hence, they requested the Commission to dismiss the appeal.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, notes that due reply has already been furnished by the respondent vide letters dated 01.07.2017 and 10.08.2017. Perusal of the records reveals that the appellant is aggrieved with the non- compliance of the rules/procedure and arbitrariness in numbering of petitions filed in DRT, however, this is not an appropriate forum to agitate all this. The respondent have rightly stated that redressal of grievance, reasons for non- compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent are outside the purview of the RTI Act. Nobody prevented the applicant to approach DRT for checking the status of his unnumbered petition or inspection of relevant documents after following the due procedure. The appellant can also file a complaint for non- compliance of the relevant rule or procedure before an appropriate authority under Page 5 of 6 the DRT. The Supreme Court of India Vs. R.S. Mishra (2017) 244 DLT 179, the Delhi High Court observed that "any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provision of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to." In view of the above judgment and considering the nature of the information sought by the appellant, the Commission feels that the ends of justice would be met if the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly the appellant is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 11.05.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III 5TH FLOOR, ANNA SALAI, 770 A, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002 THE F.A.A, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL III, 5THFLOOR, ANNA SALAI, 770 A, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002 Muruganandham Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission