Central Information Commission
Rani Mehta vs High Court Of Delhi on 15 January, 2019
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/DSLSA/A/2017/110058/HCDEL
Rani Mehta ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO, Delhi State Legal ...प्रनतवािी /Respondent
Services Authority, New Delhi.
2. CPIO, High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 18-05-2016 FA : 29-06-2016 SA : 23-08-2016
CPIO : 21-06-2016 FAO : 29-07-2016 Hearing : 03.01.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), High Court of Delhi, New Delhi seeking information on six points pertaining to legality of the relinquishment deed in civil case no. 204/11/10 at Tis Hazari Court i.e. the basis on Page 1 of 4 which the relinquishment deed vide RFA no. 476/15 is null and void, including, inter-alia, (i) the documentary evidence for granting relief, and (ii) the authenticity of the relinquishment deed.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide her the information sought. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought and to take necessary legal action against the CPIO for not providing the information sought.
Hearing:
3. The appellant did not attend the hearing despite notice. The respondent no.1 Ms. Rajni Manro, PIO, Delhi State Legal Services Authority, New Delhi and respondent no. 2, Ms. Anu Bagai, Standing Counsel of the Delhi High Court attended the hearing in person.
4. The respondent no. 2 submitted that a reply in response to the RTI application was furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 20.05.2016. The appellant was also informed that his RTI application on point no. 3 has been transferred to the PIO, Delhi State Legal Services Authority. The respondent further stated that the information sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the RTI application is clarificatory in nature, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further, they are not obliged to give information in the nature of legal opinion.
Page 2 of 45. The respondent no. 1 stated that the information sought for vide point no. 3 of the RTI application was provided to the appellant vide their letter dated 21.06.2016.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, agrees with the respondent that the information sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the RTI application is in the nature of queries, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further, due information has been provided on point no. 3 of the RTI application to the appellant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 07.01.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानित सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Delhi State Legal Services Authority, Central Office, Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), High Court of Delhi, Shershah Road, New Delhi-110503.
3. Rani Mehta, Page 4 of 4