Central Information Commission
Naresh Luthra vs Delhi State Legal Services Authority on 21 February, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos : CIC/DSLSA/A/2024/601006
CIC/DSLSA/A/2023/636526
CIC/DSLSA/A/2023/607170
CIC/DSLSA/A/2023/636519
Naresh Luthra .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. PIO,
Delhi State Legal Services
Authority, 3rd Floor, Rouse
Avenue District Court Complex,
Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya
Marg, New Delhi - 110002
2. PIO,
Delhi State Legal Services
Authority, Rouse Avenue Court
Complex, New Delhi - 110002 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 15-02-2024
Date of Decision : 20-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
1
Relevant facts emerging from appeals:
RTI application filed on : 24-07-2023, 07-04-2023, 05-11-2022, 22-
02-2023
CPIO replied on : 23-08-2023, 04-05-2023, 16-11-2022, 20-
03-2023
First appeal filed on : 19-09-2023, 25-05-2023, 18-12-2022, 15-
04-2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 09-11-2023, 09-06-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07-01-2024, 26-07-2023, 08-02-2023, 26-
07-2023
Information sought:
CIC/DSLSA/A/2024/601006 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.07.2023 seeking the following information:
"Sub: Inquiring about the status of the emails sent to the DSLSA and DLSA offices; Details regarding the meeting that took place on 03.05.2023; Information about the meeting held on 30.09.2022.
According to the information provided by Ms. Ruchika Joshi, the DSLSA PIO in response to the RTI query, the grievance addressing timeline is 30 days, and the acknowledgement timeline is 7 days. I would like to request an update on the actions taken by the respective DLSA and DSLSA officials concerning the emails sent to their offices since February 2022. This update should be in line with the citizen charter endorsed by the Chairman of DSLSA. The relevant part of the Citizen Chartered is Annexed herewith Annexure 1.
X-X-X
1. Kindly provide the following information in accordance with the guidelines stated in the Citizen Charter. Kindly furnish the acknowledgement received from the DSLSA/DLSA official in response to the emails and documents submitted to the Authority. Point by point details of the acknowledgement should include:
a. Date of acknowledgement b. Mode of acknowledgement (e.g., email, letter, etc.) c. Confirmation of receipt of the submitted emails and documents.2
2. Please provide a comprehensive account of the actions taken by the DSLSA/DLSA concerning the reported complaint with the Authority. Point by point details for each complaint should include:
a. Specific actions taken to address the complaint. b. Timeline of each action taken c. Names and designations of the officials involved in addressing the information seeker's concerns.
d. Details of the solution provided to address these concerns.
3. Please present a detailed record of the communication information, point by point, including the dates and modes of communication made to the RTI information seeker regarding the above-mentioned complaints. The point-by- point details for each complaint should include:
a. Dates and nature of all communications with the information seeker b. Modes of communication used (e.g., email, letter, phone call, etc.) c. Information provided to the information seeker at each stage of communication.
d. Correspondence related to updates, follow-ups, or any additional information requested by the information seeker.
X-X-X
4. Please provide the date on which Panel Advocate Mr. Deepak Saini requested the sum of ₹2 lakh from the beneficiary in exchange for court fees, which already verifies this information as confirmed in the RTI update by PIO Ms. Urmila Khosa dated December 03, 2022.
5. As verified in the RTI update, the grievances against DLSA officials and Panel Advocate were brought to the attention of Ld. Member Secretary Bharat Parashar on December 01, 2022. Supporting facts were subsequently provided to the Authority on December 10, 2022, through an email. The same information was confirmed in the RTI response.
Kindly share the follow-up information pertaining to the details already disclosed in the RTI:
a. Kindly provide the name and designation of the DLSA/DSLSA official(s) with whom these grievances were shared.
b. Please share the date when these grievances were officially communicated to the DLSA/DSLSA officials.
c. Please provide the start date and end date of the winter break period for year 2022.
d. Please share the total number of days attended by Ld. Member Secretary Bharat Parashar, starting from December 01, 2022, until the date he demitted the office.3
e. Kindly share the total number of days attended by Ld. Member Secretary Bharat Parashar, starting from November 24, 2022, when the case file related to this grievance was shared with him, until the date he demitted the office.
6. a. Please provide the specific RTI rule or provision that allows the PIO to intentionally share false information with a malicious intent, aiming to conceal the moral misconduct of senior officials within their office. Additionally, clarify the reason for the First Appellate Authority concurring with the response of the PIO.
7. Please furnish the follow-up information regarding the details provided by Mr. Raj Kumar, as shared by Ms. Ruchika Joshi to him.
a. Kindly disclose the names and complete designations of the officials from whom direction was sought to address the grievances as updated by Ms. Ruchika Joshi, who was then Incharge of Legal Aid. b. Please provide detailed information regarding the grievance for which direction was given to Ms. Ruchika Joshi when she was In-charge of Legal Aid.
c. Kindly share the specifics of the directions provided by the officials to Ms. Ruchika Joshi when she was In-charge of Legal Aid, regarding dealing with the complainant sensitively.
d. Please provide details on how the directions given to Ms. Ruchika Joshi to handle the complainant sensitively, as provided by the officials, were communicated to all the stakeholders, including the RTI information seeker.
X-X-X
8. Kindly provide the current as of July 23, 2023, on the status of the 54-page document dated December 10, 2022, that was submitted to DSLSA.
9. According to the Citizen Charter, the timeline to act in such cases is 30 days, with a 7- day acknowledgement period. I request information on how the Citizen Charter was applied in this specific case, where allegations of moral turpitude against Secretary DLSA Manish Jain were mentioned, yet he was allowed to continue in his office despite such serious governance issues and misuse of authority, with the support of DSLSA office.
10. Please share the details of any escalations as per DLSA regulations under the given conditions, where then Ld. Member Secretary Bharat Parashar is accused of serious governance issues, involved in willful blindness, supporting 4 the misuse of authority by Secretary Manish Jain by misusing his office, and taking no action despite the submission of a 54-page document against the DLSA/DSLSA officials.
11. Kindly provide the complete name, designation, and address of the concerned officer(s) before whom the complaint against Ld. Member Secretary, who is accused of misusing his authority by not acting on the complaint against Secretary Manish Jain, was submitted for appropriate action.
12. Please share the complete name, designation, and address of the official to whom complaints need to be forwarded when Ld. Member Secretary is involved in misusing his office and shielding DSLSA/DLSA officials from addressing their moral turpitude.
13. According to the Citizen Charter, what is the designated timeline to address cases where senior officials are involved in serious governance issues?
14. In case the above timeline is not met, what are the subsequent steps involved in addressing those issues?
15. Kindly provide the meeting number of the meeting held on May 03, 2023, at 2:30 PM, which was shared with the appellant, Naresh Luthra. Link for VC as shared was https://delhijudicialservices.webex.com/meet/webex.dslsa.
16. The First Appellate Authority response alleged that the RTI information seeker did not attend the virtual online meeting. Please share the link of the VC used for the meeting held on May 03, 2023, at 2:30 PM as attended by the First Appellate Authority.
17. Please share the name of the host and the co-host who scheduled the meeting May 03, 2023, at 2:30 PM.
18. Please share the meeting number used for conducting the meeting on May 03, 2023, at 2:30 PM along with link used for conducting this VC
19. Please provide details on how the meeting was attended by the PIO, Ms. Urmila Khosa, Ms. Jyoti, and Ms. Ruchika.
20. Please share the phone number by which the meeting held on May 03, 2023, at 2:30 PM could be attended.
21. Please share what this number 011-64800114 is used for by the DSLSA.5
22. Ms. Urmila Khosa, PIO N W Rohini, requested the RTI seeker to make a payment of ₹18/- to provide him the 9-page Minutes of the meeting. However, she did not provide the link to deposit the requested amount. Kindly provide the link to deposit the requested amount to obtain the Minutes of the meeting, Scrutiny, and evaluation committee held on September 30, 2022."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 23.08.2023 stating as under:
"1. Reply of query no. 1 (a, b and c). The email received in this Authority is acknowledged on the same day or next working day, it is received.
2. Reply of query no. 2 (a,b,c and d). Reply of this query has already been provided vide letter dated 29.11.2022.
3. Reply of query no.3 (a, b, c and d). No such separate record of applicant is maintained.
4. Reply of query no.5:
(a & b). No such information is available on record.
(c) As per record, in the year 2022 the winter vacations were declared by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi from Monday 26th December to Saturday 31st December (both days inclusive)
(d) Sh. Bharat Parashar, the then Ld. Member Secretary, DSLSA had attended the office on all working days since 01 December 2022 till the date he demitted the office.
(e) Sh. Bharat Parashar the then Ld. Member Secretary, attended the office on all working days since November 24 till the day he demitted the office.
5. Reply of query no. 6. The information does not cover under section 2 (f) of Right to Information Act 2005.
6. Reply of query no. 7 (a,b,c and d). No such record available.
7. Reply of query no. 8. No representation was received through the said email.
68. Reply of query no. 9. Efforts are made to resolve the complaints and grievances as expeditiously as possible. However, the same may take time depending upon the nature of complaint/grievance. It may not be possible to provide desired information if the query is vague.
9. Reply of query no.10. The Delhi Legal Services Authority Act is already available in public domain on the official website of this Authority at www.dslsa.org.
10. Reply of query no. 11. The matter was placed before Ld. Member Secretary, DSLSA.
11. Reply of query no. 12. The organization chart showing hierarchy of this Authority is already available in public domain under public information and RTI Manuals on the official website of this Authority at www.dslsa.org.
12. Reply of query no. 13. The Citizen Charter of this Authority is also available on the official website of this Authority at www.dslsa.org. (About us).
13. Reply of query no. 14. Please see reply given in query no. 12.
14. Reply of query no. 15. Meeting number (25176528162)
15. Reply of query no. 16. Link of the VC (https://delhijudicialservices.webex.com/meet/webex.dalsa)
16. Reply of query no. 17. DSLSA (Host), DSLSA (Co-Host).
17. Reply of query no. 18. Meeting No. 25176528162, Meeting Link- https://delhijudicialservices.webex.com/meet/webex.dsisa
18. Reply of query no. 19. All of them were appeared before the First Appellate Authority.
19. Reply of query no. 20. No such record available.
20. Reply of query no. 21. No such record available.
Further, this is to inform you that rest of the queries transferred to PIO, North West DLSA for providing requisite information directly to you."
7Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 09.11.2023, upheld the reply of the CPIO, held as under:
"Also, before concluding, it needs to be highlighted that appellant has sought voluminous data with respect to most queries. The replies to these queries cannot be provided in the form envisioned by the appellant, in view of section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it will divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. There is no gainsaying that substantial resources of the Authority would be diverted in responding to queries of the appellant which has already been substantially answered earlier. The present First Appeal is pursuant to the fifth RTI application filed by the appellant, wherein all RTIs seek similar and repetitive information, which is beyond the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005.
In view of the above discussion wherein the queries as raised by the RTI applicant have been replied to satisfactorily the present appeal is disposed of accordingly."
CIC/DSLSA/A/2023/636526 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.04.2023 seeking the following information:
"Seeking information on the actions taken by the Executive Chairman of the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) in response to the complaint I filed against the Ld. Member Secretary DSLSA Sh. Bharat Parashar on March 1, 2023, and three subsequent reminders, with the latest being on March 14, 2023. Furthermore, I would like to request additional information on the updates provided by the Public Information Officers (PIOs) regarding my previous RTI requests with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA). I have noticed that some of my queries have not been fully addressed, and critical information is missing, and, on few occasions', incorrect information was shared in the RTI. Therefore, I urge the PIOs to provide me with a comprehensive update on my previous RTI requests with supporting facts.
1) Kindly furnish the requested information regarding the complaint that was filed with the Executive Chairman DSLSA against the Ld. Member Secretary Sh.
Bharat Parashar dated 01.03.2023.
a) Provide information regarding the date when the DSLSA office received the complaint?8
b) Provide information regarding the name and designation of the DSLSA official who has received this complaint against the Ld. Member Secretary Sh.
Bharat Prasahar?
c) Please share the name and designation of the official to whom this complaint was escalated.
d) Could you kindly provide the complete official address, email address, and contact number of the official to whom this complaint has been escalated?
2) Share information about the Executive Chairman of DSLSA
a) Could you please provide me with the name of the Current Executive Chairman of DSLSA?
b) Please provide me with the complete office address, official email and official contact number of the current Executive Chairman of DSLSA?
c) Can you please share with me the name, office address, email and official contact number of the Personal Secretary to the Executive Chairman of DSLSA?
3) Please provide me with more information regarding the administrative control of DSLSA and its district DLSAs, as public domain sources indicate that they function under the Administrative Control of the High Court of Delhi.
a) Please provide me with thorough and detailed information regarding the department of the High Court of Delhi that has administrative control over DSLSA and its district DLSA offices.
b) Provide me with the complete address, name/s of the official/s, official email ID/s, and contact number/s that are associated with the department in High Court responsible for the administrative control of DSLSA and their district DLSAs.
4) Information on the timeline to take action against the complaint filed with the DLSA and DSLSA office Please provide clear and specific details regarding the timeline for addressing official complaints against DLSA, DSLSA officials, and panel advocates through the appropriate escalation channels. Accuracy and precision in the information to be provided are crucial here.
9a) Please provide me with information on the maximum time limit for resolving a complaint filed against a Panel Advocate with the Secretary DLSA? Additionally, I would like to know about the process for monitoring and ensuring that this time limit is adhered to by the Secretary DLSA.
b) Please provide me with information on the maximum time limit for resolving a complaint filed against the Secretary DLSA with the Ld. Chairperson DLSA? Additionally, I would like to know about the process for monitoring and ensuring that this time limit is adhered to by the Ld. Chairperson DLSA.
c) Please provide me with information on the maximum time limit for resolving a complaint filed against the Secretary DLSA with the Ld. Member Secretary DSLSA? Additionally, I would like to know about the process for monitoring and ensuring that this time limit is adhered to by the Ld. Member Secretary DSLSA .
d) Please provide me with information on the maximum time limit for addressing the complaint filed against Ld. Member Secretary DSLSA with the Executive Chairman DSLSA? Additionally, I would like to know about the process for monitoring and ensuring that this time limit is adhered to by the Executive Chairman DSLSA .
e) Please provide me with information on the maximum time limit for getting the resolution on challenging the Order of the DLSA Scrutiny and Evaluation Committee after the appeal was filed with the DSLSA office challenging the Order. Additionally, I would like to know about the process for monitoring and ensuring that this time limit is adhered to by the DSLSA office.
f) Please provide me with information on the maximum time limit for getting the response to the First Appeal filed with the First Appellate Authority DSLSA. Additionally, I would like to know about the process for monitoring and ensuring that this time limit is adhered to by the First Appellate Authority.
5) Request for Additional Information on RTI Response Provided by PIO DSLSA Dated 29.11. 2022 on how escalation is handled at DSLSA and DLSA offices.
a) Share the Information on the appropriate authority with complete address, e-mail id, officials name with their contact number, where a complaint can be filed against the Ld. District Secretary for misusing his position, who is accused of exploiting legal aid beneficiaries, fabricating facts in orders, making false submissions, and influencing the PIO to do the same. Additionally, the Ld. Secretary has remained silent regarding a complaint filed against a Legal Service Advocate who demanded ₹2 lakhs in cash from the legal aid beneficiary 10 in lieu of the court fees and remuneration for providing legal aid services to a beneficiary.
b) Kindly share the information on the concern authority with its complete contact details, including the authority's name, official address, e-mail ID, and officials' names with their contact numbers, to file a complaint against the Ld. Member Secretary, DSLSA for not discharging his duties as per ethos of DSLSA. The Ld. Member Secretary deliberately held the complaint file against the Ld. District Secretary, took no action, and allowed him to continue in his office, thereby making him equally guilty in the serious governance issues related to the abuse of office by the Ld. District Secretary.
c) Kindly provide me with the appropriate authority with its complete contact details, including the authority's name, official address, e-mail ID, and officials' names with their contact numbers , to file a complaint against the First Appellate Authority , DSLSA , from his Administrative lapses, who took no action on the First appeal filed against the PIOs who made false submission in the RTI , was explicitly told that PIOs were influenced by the Senior DLSA and DSLSA officials and remained silent on the issue of governance raised against the Ld. Secretary N W Rohini, Sh. Manish Jain when he was looking after the work of Member Secretary, DSLSA after his transfer despite repeated reminders.
d) Kindly provide the contact details, including the name, official address, and email ID, of the relevant authority where a complaint can be lodged against the DSLSA office for their governance issues. Despite being responsible for ensuring justice, the office lacks accountability, misuses public funds, and exploits marginalized communities. Corrupt officials run the office as their personal fiefdom, manipulating the empanelment process of legal aid advocates and hiring mediocre individuals. For instance, a panel advocate with over 22 years of legal experience misspelled "messages" as "massages" in a two-page complaint, made false submissions, and demanded ₹2 lac in cash, as well as remuneration from the legal aid beneficiary for providing legal aid services when such services are provided free to the legal aid beneficiaries."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 04.05.2023 stating as under:
"1. (a) Complaint received through email on 01.03.2023.
(b) the above complaint was received through email in this Authority and 11 was forwarded to legal aid wing. Thereafter, the said email was put up before concerned officers.
(c) The complaint was received in the legal aid wing and put up before concerned officers.
(d) The complaint received in the DSLSA, 3rd Floor, Rouse Avenue District Courts Complex, Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi on its official email id ie. [email protected], Contact number 011- 23231627 and put up before the concerned Officers.
2. (a) At present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddharth Mridul, Judge, High Court of Delhi is the Executive Chairperson of DSLSA.
(b) Address: High Court of Delhi, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi - 110003. Office E-
mail : [email protected], [email protected], Contact No.: 011-43010101.
(c) Name: No record available with this Authority Office Address: High Court of Delhi, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi-110003. Contact No.: 011-43010101.
3. (a) There is no specific department in High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Lt. Govemor, GNCT of Delhi has transferred the Administrative and Financial control over DSLSA to Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi and he enjoys the financial powers for DSLSA as he enjoys for High Court of Delhi. Further, as per The Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, Hon'ble Lt. Governor in consultation with Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi as Patron-in-Chief of DSLSA, nominates one of the serving or retired Judges of High Court of Delhi as its Executive Chairman and as per Delhi Legal Services Authority Regulations 2002, the Executive Authority of DSLSA vests in Hon'ble Executive Chairman.
(b) In addition to the reply stated above 3(a), Delhi State Legal Services Authority itself alongwith its all District Legal Services Authorities and other offices, is a subordinate department of High Court of Delhi Address: Central office of DSLSA at 3rd Floor, Rouse Avenue District Courts, Complex, Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi Email ID: dala [email protected], Contact No.:
011-23232781.
4. (a) There is no such maximum time limit specified.
12(b, c & d): This Authority has enacted and adopted the Citizens' Charter on 27.09.2022, wherein at page no. 16 & 17 it is to all" as well as "Complaint Mechanism". Under the heading of "Our Commitment to Standards of service and courtesy to all" it is mentioned that 'We strive to resolve your complaints and grievances as expeditiously as possible. However, the same may take time depending upon the nature of your complaint/grievance. Nonetheless, we assure you that your complaint would be attended to within a period of 30 working days and communication regarding the same shall be made forthwith......
Further, under the heading of "Complaint Mechanism" it is mentioned that: 'If you have any complaint against the staff of DSLSA/DHCLSC/DLSA or the Secretaries of DSLSA/DHCLSC/DLSA, you may approach the Member Secretary, DSLSA or Secretaries of the DLSAs by way of a written complaint or through personal interaction. The name and telephone numbers of all officers are prominently displayed at our website. ...All complaints will be acknowledged by us within 7 working days and final reply on the action taken will be communicated within 30 working days...............
This is to inform you that the Citizen Charter is available of the website of this Authority i.e. www.dslsa.org under the heading 'About us'.
(e) There is no such maximum time limit specified. However, it is tried to resolve the issue as early as possible.
(f) With regard to information on the maximum time limit for getting the response to the First appeal filed with the First Appellate Authority DSLSA, this is to inform you that DSLSA follows Rules as per RTI Act 2005.
5. (a, b & d) Please refer to the reply given vide query no. 4 above.
Address is : Ld. Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority, Central Office, 3rd Floor, Rouse Avenue District Court Complex, Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi-110002.
Email: [email protected] Website: www.dslsa.org, Contact No.:
01123232781.
(c) In this regard, it is informed that no such information is available with this Authority."13
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.05.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
CIC/DSLSA/A/2023/607170 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.11.2022 seeking the following information:
"Share the information asked in this RTI addressed to the Central DLSA Rouse Avenue Courts, NW Rohini DLSA and South DLSA. Also, give the information asked in the previous RTI 17818/RTI/DHC/1340/2022. Both these RTIs are marked urgent. Share the information as per the applicable rule.
SUB # Need Information to, Stem Corruption and governance issues at DLSA, Set accountability so that laws are implemented in their true spirits, Power is not given to non-deserving people and Justice is provided to all and to Seek the immediate response to RTI # 17818/RTI/DHC/1340/2022 ( Marked Urgent ) Information delayed.
1) Multiple Complaints filed with Central DLSA dated 12.08.2022 / 16.08.2022 / 24.08.2022 / 27.08.2022 / 29.08.2022 / 02.09.2022 / 06.09.2022 / 08.09.2022 / 09.09.2022 against NW DLSA Rohini Secretary Mr. Manish Jain of governance issue and misusing his power and position creating hindrances, giving favours to the accused party HCL and covering up the Violations of the ADJ Mr. Deepak Saini in which he demanded cash ₹ 2 Lacs be deposited with him as court fees, giving personal advice under Industrial Dispute Act on paid basis and misled us by asking us to change the subject line from suit for Harassment to suit for defamation to make it fit to be admissible in Rohini Court.
i) Need the detailed action against each Complaint filed with Central DLSA Patiala house against NW Rohini DLSA Secretary Mr. Manish Jain, its officials and the ADJ Mr. Deepak Saini. Need point-by-point accurate response with supporting facts against the charges levied in these complaints.
2) Status of the Panel ADJ Deepak Saini with DLSA when he is accused of the following's charges:
a) Giving misleading Opinions, changing his Opinion repeatedly from suit for harassment to defamation (Shared by him with JA Jyoti Gupta dated 07.06.2022 in front of us) and later back to harassment, Knowing fully this suit of harassment was not fit to be filed in Rohini Court ( Already this was shared 14 by him with us and JA Jyoti Gupta dated 11.07.2022 in front of us in NW Rohini Office)
b) To give personal legal service for the issues falling under the Industrial Dispute act on a chargeable basis. Fees were ₹ 51,000 /- for drafting and ₹ Rs 5,500 /- per hearing (approximately 10 hearings to get the decision as per him).
c) Asking for money in cash, around ₹ 2 Lac to be deposited with him as court fees. He is saying this amount to be ₹ 3 lac or something else now as per the Order dated 30.09.2022, I am not aware of this.
d) He said in law there in not such things like ethical or unethical and when we objected to this he said If we guide him, we can take the file back "म चा चा नही सुन सकता ककसी क"
3) Share the Information, the statements from JA Ms. Jyoti Gupta on the various communications she did with ADJ Mr. Deepak Saini and us regarding these issues.
a) The communication she did with Mr. Deepak Saini on 07.06.2022 regarding the Change of Subject line from Suit for Harassment to Defamation. This was done when my spouse went to her for the subject change. Ask her to acknowledge this instance and the statement.
b) On 11.07.2022 when Mr. Deepak Saini told the present case would be out rightly rejected by the Rohini Court Judge if we go by Mr. Manish Jain's Opinion. When we asked for the rationality of the Opinion of Mr. Manish Jain she refused to share his Opinion in writing and said Two judges could have different Opinions on the same issue with the same facts. One can accept the same case and the other can have a directionally opposite view and reject the same case. JA Ms. Jyoti Gupta to validate this statement .
c) Minute of the Meeting of Secretary Mr. Manish Jain and us on 11.05.2022 .
JA Ms Jyoti Gupta is the witness .
d) Minute of the Meeting of Secretary Mr. Manish Jain with Mr. Deepak Saini , and JA Ms Jyoti Gupta held on 11.07.2022 in his Office when we were made to stand outside .
4) All the documents Shared by the Legal aid Beneficiary with the DLSA Legal Aid Counsels and their Opinion Copies . 1) Mr. Naveen Dabas 2) Mr. Harkaran 15 Singh 3) Mrs Reema Luthra 4) Mr. Deepak Saini . Information required here Copies of the documents with index .
5) The documents Shared with Mr. Deepak Saini was not returned to the Legal aid beneficiary . Please share the list of the documents which are not returned and its True Copies . If the documents Shared with Mr. Deepak Saini is not collected back . Share the rule and regulation under which the Legal aid Counsel is allowed to retain the case related documents when he has returned the case file.
6) Information on the Complaint registered by Mr. Deepak Saini dated 18.08.2022 ?
a) Share the mode by which the complaint was filed ( E-mail , Physical Copy or any other means )
b) How was the Complaint registered ? Please share the diary number with Stamp and the True copy of the page on which the complaint was registered.
c) Share the Ture Copy of the Complaint filed by Mr Deepak Saini dated 18.08.2022 .
7) Information on the Scrutiny and Evaluation Committee meeting held on 06.09.2022.
a) The agenda of this meeting.
b) Who were the people present in the meeting and who presided over the meeting.
c) The minutes of the Meeting. Share the information on how the facts were correlated by Scrutiny and Evaluation Committee which were shared by the Legal aid counsel Mr. Deepak Saini and the Legal aid beneficiary.
d) How was this Order discussed , how were all the allegation against the legal beneficiary person proved. Was it via Voting or some other method used here for passing the Order dated 30.09.2022. What was the result .
e) The complaint was filed against me by the accused Mr. Deepak Saini on 18.08.2022, a meeting was held on 06.09.2022, the Order was passed on 30.09.2022 and I was informed about this Order on my Phone number on 18.10.2022 and Copy was shared on e-mail on 19.10.2022.
8) Information on how the Order was passed and the issues were investigated by Scrutiny and Evaluation Committee. Need the accurate information with supporting facts regarding these queries.
16a) Under which Rule and Regulation is the Complaint copy filed by Mr. Depak Saini dated 18.08.2022, not shared with me in which I am made the accused ?
b) Need the rules and regulations under which rule the accused ( me ) was not allowed to be heard and facts shared by meignored.
c) A 3-page Order Copy was shared with me. In this the allegations against me levied by Mr Deepak Saini were shared in just 4 lines without any supporting facts, the rest of the lines were just to create a narrative by Spinning false statements to justify the false allegations. Under which rule the detailed report/ investigation of the Scrutiny and Evaluation Committee Order is not shared ? Please share this detailed report on the investigation done by the Scrutiny and Evaluation Committee with supporting facts in this RTI as this is important to fight my case against the injustice done in this Order by DLSA officials , following the Corrupt practices of NW Rohini DLSA.
X-X-X
9) Mr. Deepak Saini in his allegations against me says I shouted at him on various occasions and refuse to pay for the court fee. I deny these charges. As he was not able to understand things I had to read the facts before him and he use to get irritated because of his shortcoming, now he is spinning falsehoods and categorizing reading the case information to make him understand as shouting. To counter-respond to these false allegations need the following information.
a) Need the details of all the events when I shouted as per the understanding of Mr. Deepak Saini in a chronological order and the information shared with the Scrutiny and Evaluation Committee by him and mentioning every event and What I shouted and in front of whom.
b) Mr. Deepak Saini Something about ₹ 3 Lac. I am not aware of this. Please collect the relevant information, When did this communication happened and with whom? The Detail calculation of ₹ 3 Lac how this figure was calculated, Date/time when it was said. On the contrary, he had asked us to arrange for the court fees amount in cash and to deposit to him and that amount was around ₹ 2 Lac for which he had shared the calculation with us .
c) Share the information when he made us aware we/I were/was shooting at him. Share the written proof and if he didn't make us aware, the reason for filing the complaint directly after we had filed the complaint against him on 12.08.2022 after making him aware of all his charges on 09.08.2022.
17d) Share the e-mail written to the ADJ Mr. Deepak Saini on his official e-mail id dated 09.08.2022 in which his wrongdoings and corrupt practices were shared with him.
e) Share all the facts shared by Mr. Deepak Saini with Scrutiny and Evaluation Committee in relation to the allegation made by Mr. Deepak Saini against me.
f) Share the law and Regulation under which Mr. Deepak Saini gave us this Opinion that "there is no such thing unethical or ethical in law" and that Sending notices is a waste of time If we guide him we can take the file back "म चा चा नही सुन सकता ककसी की" is what he said before disconnecting the phone
10) Scrutiny and Evaluation Committee said in their Order 30.09.2022, In the present case, the legal aid beneficiary is continuously trying to impose the manner in which the proceedings shall be conducted merely to harass the opposite party. Share the facts which prove that I am trying to impose how the proceeding shall be conducted merely to harass the Opposite party and what was the rationality of making such a derogatory statement against me.
11) As per law, share the Validity and Authenticity of the Order Passed by Scrutiny and Evaluation Committee NW Rohini DLSA undersigned by the accused Mr. Manish Jain dated 30.09.2022 when it is obtained by fraud, without disclosing material facts required for adjudication .
12) JA Ruchika Joshi ( Central Office ) as per her update on 12.09.2022 had updated that she had got the direction from her superior ( information asked in the RTI to High court also ) .
a) Share the list of documents shared by NW Rohini DLSA with the Central DLSA regarding this case (Share all these document in the pdf format with index).
b) How were those documents collected by Central DLSA ( Mode # E-mail or Physical by post or by hand ) ? if sent by Post Share the Tracking number and if it was delivered by hand share the name of the person and if shared by e-mail share an e-mail copy.
c) When those documents sent by NW Rohini DLSA ( Date and Time) ? The person who sent those documents .
d) When were those documents received by Central DLSA ( Date and Time ) ? To whom were those documents addressed and who received those documents?
e) The order copy of the direction given to JA Ruchika Joshi by her superior and the date when that Order was passed .
1813) Share the documents given by the Legal aid beneficiary to the DLSA legal counsels provided in this case starting from Mr. Naveen Dabas to Mr. Deepak Saini , covering all the legal counsel provided in this case by NW Rohini and South DLSA. Need this in chronological order?
14) Please share the Keyword and its usage in the information shared with DLSA, ADJ Panel Advocate Mr. Deepak Saini. Some of the information is already in the RTI filed with the High court and the rest will be in the e-mails written to Central DLSA, NW Rohini DLSA and physical copies given to ADJ Mr. Deepak Saini ( Counter Response to SRCS (HCL Legal aid , communication done with HCL)
a) How many times (the Count) do the Keywords Word 1) "Corporate governance", 2) "Corporate misgovernance", 3) "financial irregularities" and 4) "financial fraud" appear in the information shared with ADJ Deepak Saini and the Complaints written to the DLSA Central Office and NW Rohini DLSA and in the previous RTI # 17818/RTI/DHC/1340/2022 .
b) Share the documents name , the page number and those lines ( ± 3 lines ) in which these Keywords are found.
c) In one instance the approximate amount of the financial fraud for one of the events was shared. Please share that amount and the person accused of doing this and the event number in which it appeared from the information shared with DLSA.
15) As per the applicable law, categorized the following violations by two organizations that are guilty of committing governance violations and financial frauds .
16) How is Corruption defined in Indian law ? Give a details list of events under which the action of the government officials can be categorized as an offence under corruption. List the details of those events and their corresponding IPCs and CrPCs. Categorize the action of the DLSA Secretaries Mr. Manish Jain and Ms. Harshita Mishra and their office officials as per the information shared for defining corruption.
17) The South DLSA letter dated 10.05.2022 shows Ms Tanvi Sapra, Legal Aid Counsel provided by South DLSA Secretary to file the fresh civil suit at Saket Court after the file was returned by the Legal Aid Counsel Mr Harkarn Singh on 20.04.22 and NW Rohini DLSA letter dated 11.05.2022 suggested filing suit for 19 harassment issues in Rohini Court and on 11.05.2022 a legal aid counsel Mrs. Reema Luthra provided by the Secretary..... etc. X-X-X The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 16.11.2022 stating as under:
"In reference to your RTI application dated 07.10.2022, which is duly transferred from Delhi High Court and received in this Authority on 17.10 2022, the reply as received front Legal Aid Wing, DSLSA, Central Office, Rouse Avenue District Court Complex, New Delhi-
Reply Query No. 05 - For any issue pertaining to legal Aid first forum via email is the concerned District Legal Services Authority. As you have availed legal aid from northwest district its email id is [email protected] Reply Query No. 05(a) e-mail id [email protected] is being managed by the Secretariat of Ld. Member Secretary. The copy of office order is annexed herewith an Annexure 'A'.
Reply Query No. 5(b)- Correct forum to escalate issue is concerned DLSA as you have availed Legal Aid from Northwest district, its email is northwest- deal@micin and its contact number is (011-27862701) and the person to be concerned is Superintendent of Secretary of District.
Reply Query No. 6- In case of any such issue you may raise your grievance before Secretary of concerned district, who may consider your grievance.
Reply Query No. 6(a & b). Reply dated 30.09.2022 from Sh. Marush Jain Secretary, DISA, Northwest, Rohini Courts, Delhi have been sent to you regarding your complaint dated 17.08.2022 filed by Advocate Mr. Deepak Szini. Legal Aid Counsel, DLSA, Northwest, which is self-explanatory regarding your queries.
Reply Query No. 7. Panel advocates are appointed by district and function tinder their control. For action taken, if any you may contact the Secretary concerned of the district. As you have availed legal and from Northwest DI SA, you may contact Secretary, Northwest DLSA.20
Reply Query No. 8(a, b & c). No data of applicant has been lost by DSLSA The Authority has no control over electronic devices of others.
Reply Query No. 9 (a, b & c). Directions were given to deal with applicant sensitively and give him due update regarding his grievances after taking update from officials and Secretary of concerned district. Same was done and was updated in person to you by Ms. Huchika Joshi, In-charge Legal Aid Wing, when you have Visited DSLSA.
Reply Query No. 10- Ms. Ruchika Joshi has met personally to you on 21st August, 2022 when you have visited the office and clanty all your queries/issues Directions were given to deal with applicant sensitively and give him due update regarding the grievances after taking update from official and Secretary of concerned district Same was done and was updated in person to you by Ms. Ruchika Joshi, In-charge Legal Aid Wing, when you have visited DSLSA.
Reply Query No. (11)- All the rules and regulations are already available on public dontain. It is also to mention here that Northwest DISA has already taken action on your grievance and apprise you vide letter dated 30.09.2022, which is self-explanatory.
Reply Query No. (12)- All the rules and regulations are already available on public domain it. www.dsea.org. It is also to mention here that Northwest DLSA has already taken action on your grievance and apprise you vale letter da 30 2012, which es self-explanatory, Reply Query No. (13)-For any grievance you may send email to be concerned district from where you have availed legal aid as you have availed Legal Aid from North West DISA, you may send your grievance via email on northwest to escalate the grievance you may send email to legal aid wing/ Reply Query No. 14-DSLSA does set lave any such file pertaining to applicant same be raised with concerned DLSA from where legal aid availed.
Reply Query No. 16 (a)- All the rules and regulations are already available on public domain te www.dslsa.org. It is also to mention here that North west DLSA has already taken action on your grievance and apprise you vide letter dated 30.09.2022, which is self explanatory.
Reply Query No. 16(b) All the rules and regulations are already available on public domain ie, www.dsisa org. It is also to mention here that North west 21 DLSA has already taken action on your grievance and apprise you vide letter dated 30.09.2022, which is self-explanatory.
Reply Query No. 17- All the rules and regulations are already available on public domain ic www.dslsa.org. It is also to mention here that North west DLSA has already taken action on your grievance and apprise you vide letter dared 30.09.2022, which is self explanatory.
Reply Query No. 18- Legal Aid Landline No. is 011-23231627 and DSLSA helpline no. is 1516 Non working of telephones is an exception on same occasion which are beyond control of this Authority, which is regretted, otherwise all phones are all time duly working.
Further, this is to inform you that rest of the queries transferred to the PIO of Northwest DLSA vide Ref. No. 115/DSLSA/Estu/RTI (17.10.2022)/22- 25/10641- 45 dated 18.10.2022 for providing requisite information directly to you."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.12.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
CIC/DSLSA/A/2023/636519 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"Subject: Request for details about the grievance submitted to NW Rohini and Central DSLSA on September 30, 2022, and the complaint lodged with Member Secretary Sh. Bharat Parashar on December 10, 2022, as well as information about the first appeal filed with the First Appellate Authority.
Information regarding the Order Copy dated 30.09.2022 and the Complaint Copy 17.08.2022.
1) Order Says Copy was sent be sent to Ld. Member Secretary, DSLSA. Could you provide the following information: -
a) When was the Copy Sent to the Ld. Member Secretary, DSLSA?
b) When was Order Copy dated 30.09.2022 received by the DSLSA Office.
c) Please Share the name of the Ld. Member Secretary, DSLSA who received this Order Copy.
2) Order say I had approached the DLSA after filling the Police complaint.
a) Please share the date as per the record with NW Rohini DLSA When was the Police complaint filed by me (Mr. Naresh Luthra) before PS Mangolpuri.22
b) Please share the date as per the record with NW Rohini DLSA, when was the LAC Ms. Guriya Kumari assigned to me in this case.
3) Order say Complaint was filed dated 17.08.2022 by Mr. Deepak Saini Please share the following information regarding this: -
a) Please share the instances of the Word "Complaint" as appeared in the documents submitted by Advocate Mr. Deepak Saini dated 17.08.2022.
b) Please share the NW DLSA official who had received the documents submitted by Advocate Mr. Deepak Saini dated 17.08.2022.
c) Please share the date when the complaint was received by NW DLSA official dated 17.08.2022.
4) Order says Mr. Deepak Saini, LAC had filed the complaint with the prayer to withdraw legal aid of the beneficiary
a) Provide the exact wording of the prayer submitted by Mr. Deepak Saini in his complaint dated 17.08.2022?
b) Provide all the supporting facts presented by Mr. Deepak Saini to the NW Rohini DLSA office in relation to his prayer to withdraw legal aid of the beneficiary.
c) Please share the snippet of the Conduct which was not appropriate from the complaint filed by Mr. Deepak Saini dated 17.08.2022.
d) Please share the supporting facts in support of the conduct of the beneficiary shared by Mr. Deepak Saini with NW Rohini DLSA.
e) Mr. Deepak Saini claimed in his complaint that I threatened him on WhatsApp. Please share the communication which he said he would share with the NW Rohini DLSA official within 1 months of the report.
f) Please share the Complaint as per the Subject line of the letter dated 17.08.2022 as filed by Mr. Deepak Saini.
g) Please share the complete line where the word "massages" used in the complaint filed by Mr. Deepak Saini dated 17.08.2022.
h) Please share the detail of the action taken as per the order based on the information provided in point g) .
i) Please share the snippet of the Conduct of the benificiary which was not appropriate from the Order dated 30.09.2022 as undersigned by NW Rohini Secretary Mr. Manish Jain.
5) According to the Order, a complaint has been filed stating that the beneficiary has shouted at the LAC multiple times and is unwilling to pay the court fees.
Kindly provide the following details regarding this matter.
a) Please provide the supporting evidence that Mr. Deepak Saini presented to the Scrutiny and Evaluation committee, which led to the conclusion that I had 23 raised my voice at the LAC on several instances. Clearly state the dates of each occurrence and specify what was said on each occasion.
b) Please provide me with a list of the instances where I allegedly shouted at LAC, as stated in the complaint filed against me by Mr. Deepak Saini on August 17, 2022, and submitted to NW Rohini. Clearly state the dates of each occurrence and specify what was said on each occasion.
c) Please provide me with a list of the instances where I allegedly shouted at LAC, as stated in the Order dated 30.09.2022, undersigned by the N W Rohini Secretary Mr. Manish Jain. Clearly state the dates of each occurrence and specify what was said on each occasion.
6) As per the Order dated 30.09.2022 and the Complaint copy dated 17.08.2022, I, being the beneficiary, declined to pay the court fee and instead requested Mr. Deepak Saini, the LAC, to pay ₹2 lacs and promised to reimburse him with ₹3 lacs later.
Please share the following information regarding the Order Copy dated 30.09.2022 and the Complaint dated 17.08.2022 filed by Mr. Deepak Saini and the Opinion of Ms. Reema Luthra
a) The damage amount cited in the Order dated 30.09.2022, as communicated by LAC Ms. Reema Luthra upon returning the case.
b) Provide the date on which Ms. Reema Luthra was assigned this case by NW Rohini DLSA? When was it returned by her? Additionally, please provide the dates on which she shared her opinion.
c) Provide the date when the LAC Mr. Deepak Saini was assigned this case by NW Rohini DLSA.
d) Provide the amount of damages mentioned in the Order dated 30.09.2022 as mentioned by the LAC Mr. Deepak Saini.
e) Provide the dates of the occasions, Mr. Deepak Saini met with the Secretary Mr. Manish Jain regarding this case.
f) Provide the date when the Case was returned by Mr Deepak Saini and his Opinion details at the time of returning the Case.
g) Provide the name of the DLSA official to whom this case was returned by the LAC Mr. Deepak Saini .
h) Provide the calculated value of the damages in ₹ as mentioned by Mr. Deepak Saini in his complaint dated 17.08.2022. Share its calculation as calculated by Mr. Deepak Saini for the genuine claim as mentioned by him.
i) Provide the damage amount in ₹ with its calculation as submitted by the LAC Mr. Deepak Saini to the NW Rohini Office.
247) In his complaint dated 17.08.2022, Mr. Deepak Saini stated that he was unaware of my mobile number, as mentioned in point 2 of his complaint. Please share the following information as per the information available with N W Rohini DLSA office. a) Provide the information, suggested by the LAC Mr. Deepak Saini for the subject change in the case assigned to the LAC Mr. Deepak Saini as per the e-mail dated 08.07.2022.
b) Provide the Assignment Case sheet assigned to Mr. Deepak Saini regarding this case.
c) Provide the Phone number and the name of the Beneficiary along with the NW Rohini Official who signed the case assignment form ( Ref no.1197/22) as per the assigned case sheet regarding the case assigned to the LAC Mr. Deepak Saini.
8) According to the Scrutiny and Evaluation committee's Order dated 30.09.2022, the matter of Corporate Governance and Financial irregularities may only be resolved through a civil suit seeking damages, as per the interpretation of Secretary N W Rohini DLSA, Mr. Manish Jain. Please share the following information as per the records available with NW DLSA
a) Old Reference no. 384/2022 dated 10.03.2022 , assigned to LAC Mr. Naveen Dabas , What was the type of case referred to in Reference no. 384/2022?
b) Provide information about the nature of the case referenced by number 494/2022 and the case addressed by section 156(3) of the CrPC?
c) Ref no. 951/2022, Please share where LAC Ms. Reema Luthra expressed in her opinion any reference to the word "injunction," . if there is no reference , please indicate in your update that there is no such reference.
9) An email was sent to the Central DSLSA on September 28th, 2022, concerning the tardiness in addressing the Corporate Governance and Financial irregularities matter by DLSA officials. The email and letter headers are provided below. PS Prarvinder Kumar confirmed the receipt of the email. This had the attachment having the detail of the grievances. Share the following information regarding this grievance raised with the DSLSA
a) Provide a detailed account of the grievances that were stated in the email?
b) Provide the name of the individual to whom this email complaint was directed at [email protected] and [email protected] .
c) Share the name to whom this id belongs [email protected].
d) Please share the name of the person to whom this grievances were escalated.
e) Provide the names of the individuals stated as primary accused in this complaint.
25f) Provide information on the action report to resolve the complaint made against the DLSAs officials and the LACs stated in the grievance.
10) Information regarding the NW Rohini Panel Advocate Mr. Deepak Saini
a) Provide the date of Mr. Deepak Saini's appointment as Panel Advocate with DLSA.
b) Please provide the names of the members in the selection committee who authorized the appointment of Panel Advocate Mr. Deepak Saini, as well as their evaluation report regarding his selection.
c) Kindly provide the list of the people called for the appointment of Panel Advocate in DLSA as well as the conclusive list of chosen candidates.
11) Grievance raised with the Member Secretary, Sh. Bharat Parashar dated 10.12.2022 Kindly furnish the below-mentioned details pertaining to the complaint addressed to the Member Secretary, Sh. Bharat Parashar :- a) On which Date was the Central DSLSA in receipt of this email.
b) Provide the name of the Central DSLSA official who was the recipient of this email.
c) Provide the name of the attachment files sent with the grievance email.
d) Please share the number of documents in the file "Greviance_Naresh_10_11_2022.pdf"
e) Share the date when was this grievances transferred to the Member Secretary. Please provide the name of the Member Secretary who addressed this grievances?
f) Please specify the name of the files transferred to the Member secretary with the documents number of each file.
g) Can you provide the grievances details and share the individuals accused in this grievances.
h) Please provide the Information and evidence presented by the defendant in relation to the accusations made against them.
i) Provide the date when was the Member Secretary, Sh. Bharat Parashar transferred.
j) Kindly provide detailed information on the action taken by the Member Secretary, Sh. Bharat Parashar prior to his transfer (Please provide scanned copies of the work details and/or any comments he made) in relation to addressing this complaint.
k) Please share the details of the records obtained from the implicated parties referenced in this grievance?
l) Who handled this grievance after the transfer of the Member Secretary , Sh.
Bharat Parashar.
26m) Kindly provide detailed information on the action taken by the DSLSA official who handled this grievance after the transfer of Member Secretary, Sh. Bharat Parashar.
n) Please mention the name of the DSLSA official who is handling this grievances now as of 22.02.2023 and Provide the information on the action taken by him in addressing this grievance.
o) Could you please provide the duration that has passed since the complaint was lodged with DSLSA regarding the serious governance problem of Senior officials of DLSA and DSLSA involved in abuse of power, and influencing the PIO to make incorrect submission?
12) On 5th January 2023, Mr. Harsh Kumar Narang, who is in charge of the Legal Aid Wing at the Central DSLSA, sent a letter to the NW Rohini secretary with the file number 05/Misc/LAWIII/DSLSA/2022/133-34.
a) Please share the details of the representation sent by Central DLSA to NW Rohini
b) Please share the name of the DLSA official to whom this was address.
c) Please share Date of response of the NW Rohini Office to the Central DLSA.
d) Could you provide a detailed account of the response received from the NW Rohini office, including the original document and the identity of the individual who provided it.
e) Kindly provide details of the action taken by the Central DSLSA subsequent to receiving the response information provided by the NW Rohini office.
13) First Appeal was filed on 19.12.2022 with the First Appellate Authority DSLSA Kindly provide the below mentioned details related to the First Appeal filed with the First Appellate Authority
a) Please provide the copy of the First Appeal.
b) Name of the First Appellate Authority official.
c) Please furnish the response of the First Appellate Authority to the First Appeal. In case there has been no response yet, please explain the cause for the delay, particularly when the information pertains to governance matters at the DSLSA and DLSA offices.
14) Information on the working of the Panel Advocate at DLSA, Mr. Deepak Saini Kindly provide the information related to the Panel Advocate at DLSA Mr. Deepak Saini
a) Kindly provide the relevant regulations and/or terms and conditions that are enforced on the Panel Advocate of DLSA who demands cash and provides paid 27 legal services to individuals recommended to them by DLSA as legal aid beneficiaries when that service is free of cost at DLSA.
b) Please provide details on the action taken by DLSA/Central DSLSA in response to the complaints lodged against Mr. Deepak Saini, which was filed starting August 12, 2022 and counting.
c) Please provide the amount demanded by the LAC Mr. Deepak Saini from the legal aid beneficiary in cash to be deposited to him in the pretext of court fee as per the information available with the DSLSA and DLSA office.
15) Information on the action taken by the DSLSA against Mr. Manish Jain, the Secretary NW Rohini, who has been accused of abusing his position, exerting pressure on PIOs to provide incorrect information in RTI requests, and issuing orders based on fabricated information provided by Panel Advocate Mr. Deepak Saini."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 20.03.2023 stating as under:
"1 (a): There was no directions in the order dated 30.09.2022 to send a cору tо Ld. Member Secretary, DSLSA. However, said order was called for by this authority vide email dated 23.11.2022 when the present applicant had filed another RTI. The copy of order dated 30.09.2022 was sent to this Authority on 24.11.2022.
(b): Copy has been received on the same date i.e., 24.11.2022.
(c) Letter was received at R&I/Dak Section, DSLSA. Sh. Bharat Parashar was the Ld. Member Secretary, DSLSA. However, it wasn't personally received by him.
9 (a): Whatever grievances were mentioned by you in your email dated 28.09.2022 were put up before the concerned officers.
(b) These emails are official mail id and managed by the Secretariat of Ld. Member Secretary and the staff of legal literacy Wing respectively.
(c) No information available with this Authority.
(d) The emails have been put up before Ld. Special Secretary and Ld. Member Secretary, DSLSA
(e) Query is not clear.
28(f) You have been called in person and you have met Ld. Member Secretary. DSLSA on 22.12.2022.
11. (a) Email was received on 10.12.2022.
(b) All the wings/Officials whom this mail was addressed, have received the same and duly forwarded/put up before the concerned Officers.
(c) Whatever you attached with your email, the same was received as it is and placed before the officers accordingly.
(d) Whatever you attached with your email, the same was received as it is.
(e) All the emails were placed before Sh. Bharat Parashar, the then Ld. Member Secretary.
(f) All the emails sent by you had been placed before the then Ld. Member Secretary.
(g) You must be having the details of grievances as all the grievances mentioned in your email.
(h) It is an administrative procedure and not a judicial matter. Such information is not maintained.
(i) The then Ld. Member Secretary had demitted office on 09.01.2023.
(j) The then Ld. Member Secretary had heard your grievances and assured to resolve issues faced by you. However, he soon demitted office after the Winter break.
(k) Original record file was called from North West, DLSA.
l) Ld. Special Secretary, was looking after urgent matters only till regular Ld. Member Secretary took charge
m) File was kept on hold till the Regular Id. Member Secretary took charge.
o) No such data is maintained.
12 (a) Copy of letter is attached for your reference.
(b) Letter was addressed to the superintendent, North West DLSA.
29(c, d) No detail is available.
e) No information has been provided.
13. (a)You must be having the details of First Appeal as the same has been filed by you.
(b). Sh. Sushant Changorta is the FAA.
(c) Requisite information does not fall under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
15. Action against Sh. Manish Jain, Ld. Secretary if any taken by DSLA is an administrative matter and cannot be disclosed with regard to all the points, no such information available with this authority."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 09.06.2023, has directed the CPIO to forward herewith a copy of order dated 06.05.2023 passed by the Ld. FAA along with copies of certifications submitted by PIOs for your information.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Ms. Ruchika Joshi, PIO and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Dealing Officer present in person.
The written submissions of the Appellant are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, generically, without indicating ground for appeal related to specific point of RTI applications, submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent on his above-mentioned RTI applications. The Appellant kept on harping about the deficiency of services provided by the Respondent Public Authority. The Commission, during the hearing, queried the Appellant repeatedly in each of the above-mentioned cases to be specific regarding the file number and point number against which information was not provided to him by the 30 Respondent. On the contrary, the Appellant insisted on granting some time so that he could specifically point-out the deficiencies in the information provided.
The Commission is of the view that as per India Post tracking report, the hearing notice of the Commission was duly delivered to the Appellant on 10.02.2024. Therefore, the Appellant got sufficient time to contest his second appeals by filing his written submissions. However, upon insistence by the Appellant, the Commission granted one day to both the parties to file their respective written submissions.
The Respondent submitted that complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant. The replies of the Respondent were seen during the hearing.
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission finds it expedient to bring on record that the Appellant was heard at length in connection with the instant set of cases as well as 2 other appeal(s) listed for hearing simultaneously. The larger part of the hearing proceedings was centred around the objection of the Appellant with regard to the alleged deficiencies in the services of Respondent Public Authority and also the hearing conducted by the First Appellate Authority through Video-Conference.
After granting adequate time to the Appellant to present his above-mentioned second appeals, the Commission interrupted the Appellant to explain to him that none of these contentions are of consequence as the information sought for in the RTI Application does not even conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Further, the written submissions received from the Appellant does not even specify the deficiency in information provided.
The Commission further observes that the Appellant appears to have misinterpreted the scope and ambit of the RTI Act and is largely not well acquainted with the basic requirements and interpretation of the Act in terms 31 of what to ask, how to ask and most importantly, what to expect from the CPIO(s) & FAA in exercise of his right to information.
Further, the arguments tendered by the Appellant are summarily rejected as these have no substance; are far stretched and laborious, seemingly to obstruct or prolong the disposal of the cases by the Commission.
The Commission further observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is unspecific/cumbersome and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. As it appears it would be impossible for the public authorities to provide information of such magnitude in any form and will be further unreasonable to expect the CPIOs to correctly apply their mind to decipher what information can be provided or what should be exempted. Moreover, in the instant RTI Applications, the Appellant has sought for multitude information involving clarifications/explanation from the CPIO which also do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. Despite these, the Respondent has provided point-wise reply/information to the Appellant, in the spirit of the RTI Act.
Even if the Commission were to empathetically consider the concerns raised by the Appellant during hearing, he is reminded of the fact that his right to information is neither absolute nor unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in 32 regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information.
The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant challenging the veracity of information furnished by the CPIO is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) 33 The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) The Commission further observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as it requires the CPIO to deduce and provide Yes or No answer as a form of confirmation of a speculative statement. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."34
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Further for better understating of the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, reference may be had of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:35
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) In addition to the above observations, it is pertinent to note that even the grounds of the First Appeal and Second Appeal are more in the nature of expressing conjecture and adducing the possibilities of finding a record holder or questioning the unavailability of the record of this nature, in a manner that knowingly or unknowingly seeks to mortify the CPIOs without even asking for what is prescribed as "information" in the RTI Act.
Having observed as above, the Commission is not in a position to provide for any relief in these matters or to call into question the action/inaction of the CPIO(s) based on their wisdom and understanding of the RTI query.
36In view of the above, no relief can be ordered in the above-mentioned appeals. However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of Appellant and advises him to pursue his grievance through appropriate mechanisms.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date 20.02.2024 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date 37