Central Information Commission
Bishnu Kant Thakur vs Punjab & Haryana High Court on 6 November, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/PUHHC/C/2023/144544.
Shri BISHNU KANT THAKUR. निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Date of Hearing : 04.11.2024
Date of Decision : 04.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 05.10.2023
PIO replied on : 17.10.2023
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 28.11.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.10.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. An attested copy of Letter/Order/Notice etc. vide which Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana Hight Court has asked the Central Beaure of Investigation about violation of the above- mentioned Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights/Natural Justice and above- mentioned direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, on case related to the above mentioned admitted criminal appeal and on the "Ground of Appeal", as attached with above mentioned admitted criminal appeal, from the last more than 7 years, be informed.
2. An attested copy of the Affidavit/Letter/Report etc. vide which the Central Bureau of Investigation has informed the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that the court below has convicted the petitioner in the case related to the above mentioned admitted criminal appeal number by violating the Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights/Natural Justice, without giving equal opportunity to Page 1 defence their case and the Officers/Officials of the CBI has implicated the petitioner in a false case related to the above mentioned admitted criminal appeal number, based on a faked complaint/without evidence as mentioned in its crime manual, by violating the above mentioned direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, be provided
3. An attested copy of Objection, as filed by the Central Beaure of Investigation, against above mentioned admitted criminal appeal be provided."
The CPIO, Joint Registrar vide letter dated 17.10.2023 replied as under:-
"Reference your application dated 5.10.2023 bearing I.D. No.1252/PIO dated 16.10.2023 under the RTI Act, 2005. The information has already been rejected and you were intimated accordingly. Besides this, you have already availed your remedy of first appeal under the RTI Act, 2005."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 20.09.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
2. That in response to that application, the complainant was intimated vide office letter No.1452/PIO/HC dated 17.10.2023 (photocopy enclosed with the appeal) that the information has already been rejected and he was intimated accordingly. Besides this, he has already availed his remedy of first appeal under the Act.
3. That prior to application dated 5.10.2023, the complainant had already filed a similar application dated 14.9.2023, which was rejected and he was intimated vide office letter No.1367/PIO/HC dated 26.9.2023 that the information does not fall under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 (photocopy is enclosed).
4. That the first appeal filed by the complainant before the Appellate Authority (RTI) of this Hon'ble Court was dismissed with detailed speaking order dated 18.10.2023 (photocopy is enclosed).
5. That the information sought by the complainant is in the form of queries relating to a pending criminal appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and such information does not fall within the definition of 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011) held as under:-
Written submission dated 20.09.2024 has been received from the Complainant and same has been taken on record. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
Page 2
3. That after reading the written submission of the concerned PIO. I just want to say that the PIO has trying his best to MISGUIDE the Central Vigilance Commission. Sorry to say that may be the concerned PIO is thinking that the Central Information Commissioner is a FOOL PERSON, For this statement I want to draw the kind attention of the Central Information Commissioner on following facts:-
a. First, the written submission of the PIO is focused on my online RTI Application registered with ID No. 1193/PIO dated 22.09. 2024, but my instant complaint is related to my offline RTI Application dated 05.10.2024.
h. Secondly, a copy of his reply and order passed by the first appellate authority, as attached by the PIO with his written submission is related my online RTI Application registered with ID No. 1193/PIO dated 22.09.2024, it is not related to my offline RII Application dated 05.10.2024.
e. I had just received a letter from the PIO in response of my instant RTI Application. Vide his letter Number 1452/PIO/HC dated 17.10.2023, he has informed me that the Information has already been rejected". One important question is arising here that who has rejected! When I have not filed any first appeal, for my instant RTI Application, then even the first appellate authority, do not have right to reject it. So, we can say that the PICT has trying his best to MISGUIDE the Central Information Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Vinay Kumar, Jt. Registrar- participated in the hearing through video-conference.
The Respondent stated that the complainant had already filed a similar application dated 14.9.2023, which was rejected, and he was intimated vide office letter No.1367/PIO/HC dated 26.9.2023 that the information does not fall under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act,2005. He further stated that any information which is related to judicial side can be obtained as per court rules. They further stated that the certified copy of any documents filed in a particular case is to be sought as per the procedure laid down in court rules. They relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat Civil Appeal No. 1966-1967 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) 5840 of 2015) dated 04 March 2020, whereby the Apex court held that information to be accessed/ certified copies on the judicial side must be collected using the procedure provided by the High Court Rules, and the provisions of the RTI Act must not be invoked.
Page 3 Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that as submitted by the PIO during hearing, the certified copy of any document filed in a particular case on judicial side is to be sought as per the procedure laid down in relevant court rules. Furthermore, the PIO has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat Civil Appeal No. 1966- 1967 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) 5840 of 2015) dated 04 March 2020. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
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 Page 4 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 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.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies.
The Compliant disposed of 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 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)