Central Information Commission
S Muthumalai vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 6 January, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/UTOAN/A/2018/161672-UM
Mr. S. Muthumalai
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
O/o Chief Judicial Magistrate, District & Session Courts,
Andaman District, Port Blair 744102
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.01.2021
Date of Decision : 05.01.2021
Date of RTI application 11.05.2018
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 09.07.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 10.10.2018
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought certify copy of the proceeding in Matrimonial case No. 19 of 1991 including the proceeding of 20/07/1992, while issuing the order (in the Court of the District Judge of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair) to Shri S. N. Swamy vs. Smt. Thavamariat, Port Blair.
Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. S. Muthumalai;
Respondent: Absent;Page 1 of 3
The Respondent remained absent during the hearing. Ms. Kalyani, Network Engineer, NIC studio of Port Blair, confirmed the absence of the Respondent. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 04.01.2021 wherein while explaining the background of the case, a reference was drawn towards the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner Vs. High Court of Gujarat and Another in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1966-1967 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5840 of 2015) dated 04th March, 2020, in support of their contention. It was further submitted that due to heavy pressure of judicial work, he could not be able to attend the hearing.
The Appellant at the outset submitted that the information sought has not been received by him, till date. Therefore, he prayed that strict action should be taken against the erring CPIO, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
With regard to the information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side is to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules and the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to, the Commission referred to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, in the case of Chief Information Commissioner Vs. High Court of Gujarat and Another in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1966-1967 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5840 of 2015) dated 04th March, 2020, wherein it was held that one must apply under Court Rules to get the certified copies of Court documents. The relevant Para of the observations of the Court are reiterated as under:-
"42. We do not find any merit in the above submission and that such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the information/certified copies of the documents. When there is an effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reasons for which the certified copies are required, we do not find any justification for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources which the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid.
43. We summarise our conclusion:-
(i) Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act; but merely lays down a different procedure as the practice or payment of fees, etc. for obtaining information. In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
(ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to."
Nonetheless, the Commission felt that correct and timely response is the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the Page 2 of 3 Respondent public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself.
The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Respondent in not responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of the Respondent is against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information. The O/o Chief Judicial Magistrate being backbone of Justice Dispensation System for all the more reason should adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, in letter and spirit.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant as also on perusal of available records and taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, in the case of Chief Information Commissioner Vs. High Court of Gujarat and Another in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1966-1967 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5840 of 2015) dated 04th March, 2020, observes that the information sought by the Appellant regarding the Court Proceedings cannot be furnished under the RTI Act, 2005 and the same should be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules.
As regards the contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, is concerned, it is evident that no reply had been provided by the CPIO, within the stipulated time period, in the matter, which is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission therefore instructs the CPIO, to show-cause why action should not be taken under the provisions of the Act for this misconduct and negligence and also directs to explain why penal action of Rs. 5,000/- should not be taken as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
It is appalling to note that the FAA had also not acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore is advised to be alert and cautious in the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 with due diligence and care.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above directions.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर के राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 05.01.2021 Page 3 of 3