Central Information Commission
Geeta Agarwal vs Debts Recovery Tribunal, Triveni ... on 30 March, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-110066, website:cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/002188
Complaint No. CIC/MP/C/2016/000033
Complaint No. CIC/MP/C/2016/000035
Appellant/Complainant : Smt Geeta Agrawal, Allahabad
Public Authority : Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad
Date of Hearing : 20th December 2016
Date of Decision : 22nd March, 2017
Present
Appellant : Not present.
Respondent : Shri C.L. Agarwal, Assistant Registrar &
CPIO and Shri S.K. Tripathi, Registrar - at CIC
ORDER
1. The abovementioned three cases of Smt. Geeta Agrawal, the appellant/complainant in these matters, were heard. The complainant was not present for the hearing in spite of a notice of hearing having been issued to her. The respondents were heard and decision taken on the basis of available record and the arguments put forward by the respondents.
2. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/002188 2.1 The appellant, vide RTI application dated 4.8.2015 sought current status of the two appeals filed by the applicant under section 30(1) of the RDDBFI Act, action taken by the Registrar on two letters sent vide ticket no. EU235586825IN in response to the above appeals.
2.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 2.9.2015, stated that the information related to judicial proceedings of the Tribunal and informed the appellant that she could seek information under DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority through her appeal dated 11.9.2015. The FAA, vide letter dated 6.10.2015 upheld the decision of CPIO. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission.
2.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents submitted that instead of getting the information under the RDDBF Act and DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 the appellant sought information through RTI application which could not be provided in view of the relevant rules on the subject.
2.4 The Commission observes that the appellant has sought the status regarding two appeals and action taken on two letters by the Registrar whereas the appellant could follow the DRT procedures with regard to status of the appeal, the information on action taken on letters written to the Registrar could be provided to her. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide the action taken on the two letters as available, within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. As for the appeals pending with DRT, the appellant may follow the laid down DRT procedures. The appeal is disposed of.
3. Case No. CIC/MP/C/2016/000033 3.1 The complainant, vide RTI application dated 3.9.2015, sought reasons for summoning the applicant and the rule under which the applicant was being summoned by the Recovery Officer in DRC No. 209 of 2000.
3.2 The CPIO, vide reply dated 5.10.2015, stated that the information sought pertained to the judicial record of the Tribunal and was restricted in view of Rule 26 of the notification issued by the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad. The applicant was free to obtain such information under the DRT (Procedure) Rules. Dissatisfied, the complainant approached the first appellate authority vide his appeal who, vide letter dated 14.12.2015, upheld the decision of CPIO stating that there was no provision under the RTI Act under which appellant can obtain information of the orders passed in the judicial records. Not quite satisfied, the complainant made a complaint to the Commission stating that the CPIO and FAA should be penalised u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the complainant had sought reasons for summoning her which does not fall in the category of information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act and any attempt to reply would be construed as the legal and personal opinion of the CPIO. Moreover, the rules under which the DRT functions also prohibit DRT to provide information on pending judicial cases.
3.4 On hearing the respondents and going through the available record, the Commission observes that the respondent authority has replied appropriately and upholds the decision of the FAA. The complaint is closed.
4. Case No. CIC/MP/C/2016/000035 4.1 The complainant, vide RTI application dated 15.10.2015, sought the action that had been taken against the applicant by the Tribunal on the CPIO's letter No. 2060/DRT/2006/Admin/27/854 regarding forgery made in the application.
4.2 The complainant approached the first appellate authority stating that the CPIO had refused to accept her application. The FAA, however, vide order dated 14.12.2015 responded that the CPIO had already responded vide letter dated 10.11.2015 and the appellate authority could not take a decision on the applicants complaint.
4.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant was not present. The respondents stated that the complainant had referred to another RTI application of her where she had made an allegation of forgery and they were not empowered to take a decision in the matter.
4.4 On going through the available record and hearing the respondents, the Commission observes that the appellant was referring to some forgery in an application and desired to know the action taken against the applicant. The respondents had not taken any action in the matter as is apparent from the FAA's order and therefore, no information was available with them which could be provided to the complainant. The complaint is closed.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy Dy. Registrar Copy to:-
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Debt Recovery Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, 9/2-A, Panna Lal Road, 9/2-A, Panna Lal Road, Allahabad - 211 002 (UP). Allahabad - 211 002 (UP).
Smt. Geeta Agarwal, 268/4, Riwa Road, Maheva, Allahabad - 211 007.