Central Information Commission
Ms.Rohiniarora vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 January, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002338
Date of Hearing : January 6, 2012
Date of Decision : January 6, 2012
Parties:
Applicant
Ms. Rohini Arora
C70, Raj Nagar
Pitampura
New Delhi 110 034
The Applicant was present during the hearing
Respondents
Department of Information Technology
9th Floor, BWing
Delhi Secretariat
IP Estate
New Delhi
Represented by : Shri. Vivek Mittal, APIO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002338
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.1.4.11 with the PIO, Department of Information Technology, GNCTD seeking information related to the Order No.45/2010/CAT and 46/2010/CAT dt.7.12.10 passed by the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi with respect to a complaint filed by her in relation to FIR Number 205/09 registered under Section 66(1) of IT Act by Crime Branch of Delhi Police. The PIO replied on 29.4.11. The information sought and the reply provided are given below:
S.No. Query Reply
1. Kindly provide me with information on why I am Fee is required to be deposited for lodging a
being asked to deposit court fees of complaint with Adjudicating officer as per
unreasonable amount for a criminal case by the Section 8 of the Information
Adjudicating Authority - Cyber Crime Reference Technology(Qualification and Experience of
No.F 2(12)/2011/IT/603 dt.20.1.11 Adjudicating officers and manner of holding
enquiry) Rules, 2003 (Copy of the relevant
section enclosed)
2. Final report with evidence provided overlooked
has been submitted in court of metropolitan
magistrate for trial by Delhi Police. If there is
specialized department required in police to
investigate cyber crime, then how can report be The matter pertains to Delhi Police and filed by police in court where people do not have Department of Information Technology has no the required competency? information in the matter.
3. Why has Delhi Police not submitted FIR or report to Adjudicating Authority or Cyber Appellate Tribunal for case registered under IT Act when there are specific guidelines to do so Not satisfied with the reply , the Applicant filed an appeal dt.6.5.11 with the Appellate Authority commenting on the information provided and requesting for further clarification. It was her case that the "complaint is of theft, breach of privacy , forgery, fraud, defamation involving monetary losses which is a criminal and not civil liability. The court fees for criminal case is not based on percentage of the damage amount under the law" . She questioned in her appeal as to how if there is a specialized department required in Police to investigate cyber crime . the reports can filed by the Police in the Court where people do not have the required competency. Relying upon an article published in the Indian Express newspaper, she averred that the right authority to take cyber crime criminal case is the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. Shri. Rajendra Kumar, Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal vide his order dt.27.7.11 in which he upheld the decision of the PIO. Being aggrieved with the Appellate Authority's decision the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.23.9.11 before CIC requesting the Commission to direct the Adjudicating Authority to take up the case at the earliest and provide her the information.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that all she wants to know is why she has been asked to pay an exorbitant amount of court fees for a criminal case which ought to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority in a routine manner, as already indicated in the Indian Express article dated 9.12.09. The relevant extract of the article as pointed out by her reads as follows: " With the threat of cyber crime increasing, the Cyber Appellate Tribunal , New Delhi, has been asked to monitor all all criminal cases pertaining to cyber crime registered in Chandigarh. After registering a cyber criminal case , the Chandigarh police will forward the details to UT Secretary (Information Technology) who will further forward the case to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal . The cases shall be dealt with under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law as well as the IT Act. "
The Respondent explained that as per rules the Appellant is expected to approach the Cyber Appellate Tribunal after paying the Court fees as indicated in Rule 11 of The Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry)Rules, 2003, a copy of which has already been shared with the Appellant. According to the Respondent, the Adjudicating Authority is not expected to enquire into cyber crime cases until such time a complaint is made to the Adjudicating officer accompanied by the required fees which is calculated on the basis of the damages claimed by way of compensation by the contraveners. The Appellant, however, refused to accept the explanation furnished by the Respondents.
3. From the submissions on record it is noted that the Respondents have provided the relevant rule to the Appellant which indicates the court fees to be paid by the Complainant for enquiring into cyber crime cases. However, in order to satisfy the Appellant, who while relying upon the information available on the Appellate Tribunal website insisted that the Adjudicating Authority is automatically responsible for enquiring into cyber crime cases referred to it without the court fees and that the PIO is deliberately denying her he required information, the Commission directs the PIO to furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant explaining therein the role of the Appellate Tribunal, the procedure to be adopted for the Tribunal to take up a cyber crime case and affirming their position that the court fees will have to accompany a complaint to the Adjudicating Officer, as per rule 11 of the IT Act , for the Tribunal to enquire into the matter. The affidavit should reach the Commission by 10.2.12.
4. The appeal is disposed off with the above direction.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Ms. Rohini Arora C70, Raj Nagar Pitampura New Delhi 110 034
2. The Public Information Officer Department of Information Technology 9th Floor, BWing Delhi Secretariat IP Estate New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority Department of Information Technology 9th Floor, BWing Delhi Secretariat IP Estate New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC Note: In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of the Commission's decision, and (3) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint.