Central Information Commission
Dr.T P Singh vs Supreme Court Of India on 20 July, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/002514
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 20 July 2012
Date of decision : 20 July 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri T P Singh,
R/o. 228, Ajanta Colony,
Meerut, U P - 250 004.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee, 108, Lawyers Chamber,
R K Jain, Chambers Block, Post Office
Wing, Supreme Court Compound,
New Delhi - 110 001.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri T.K. Barua, CPIO,
(ii) Shri I.D. Sharma, Assistant,
(iii) Col. P S Sharma, Advocate
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
The Appellant did not turn up for the hearing, in spite of notice. The Respondents were present in our chamber. We heard their submissions.
2. The Appellant had sought a wide variety of information regarding the functioning of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee including the details about the minutes of quarterly meetings, amount of fees paid to the advocates, cost incurred on its various functionaries, the number of cases in which any legal aid was given during the past five years, the names of the CIC/SM/A/2011/002514 advocates engaged in cases which were rejected by the courts, etc. The CPIO had provided some information and had also asked the Appellant to deposit the photocopying charges for supplying the copies of some documents. Later, the first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.
3. We carefully considered the contents of the RTI application. The Appellant has indeed sought a wide variety of information regarding the functioning of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The CPIO has no problem in providing the information. The Appellant must pay the photocopying charges as prescribed under the rules to get the copies of the relevant records. However, if he has a problem in making payment, the CPIO is also willing to show him the relevant records for his inspection. It is for the Appellant to decide if he would like to pay the photocopying charges and get the copies of the relevant records or inspect the records in the office of the CPIO. We, however, would like to direct the CPIO to write to the Appellant and indicate the total amount of photocopying charges he has to pay if he wants to get the copies of various relevant records relating to his RTI requests. While writing to the Appellant, the CPIO should also suggest to him a likely date on which he can visit the office of the CPIO and inspect the records. The CPIO is directed to write to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order.
4. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
CIC/SM/A/2011/002514 (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/002514