Central Information Commission
Mr. Rakesh Agarwal vs High Court Of Delhi on 10 June, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000755/3639
Complaint No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000755
Relevant Facts emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Mr. Rakesh Agarwal,
B-24, Vikram Nagar,
Feroze Shah Kotla,
New Delhi-110002.
Respondent : Mr.Sunil Kukreja
Asstt. PIO High Court of Delhi New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 29/01/2009 PIO replied : 05/03/2009 First appeal filed on : 24/03/2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not replied. Complaint filed on : 01/04/2009
The appellant had sought following information under RTI Act, 2005:-
S. No. Information sought PIO's reply
1. In spite of my best efforts, I A copy of "Delhi Petty Offences (Trial by could not find a copy of "Delhi Special Metropolitan Magistrates) Rules, Petty Offences (Trial by Special 1998 had already been supplied.
Magistrates) Rules 1998".
Kindly provide me a copy.
2. In respect of every Special In view of Rule 5(b) of Delhi High Court Metropolitan Magistrate posted (RTI) Rules, 2006, the information sought at any of the Traffic Courts, for cannot be supplied, as it would cause please provide a copy of the file unwarranted invasion of privacy of the containing bio-data and other individuals concerned. such information on the basis of which the concerned Special Metropolitan Magistrate was appointed.
First Appellate Authority ordered. Not replied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 28 May 2009:
The following were present Complainant : Mr. Rakesh Agarwal Respondent : Mr. S.D. Sharma, PIO The counsel for the public authority has sent a letter requesting for adjournment. The Commission takes a very dim view of people who try and delay the matter and waste everyone's time. The Commission pointed out to the respondent that if they seek adjournment they should be willing to compensate to the appellant for the cost incurred by him. The PIO stated that it will be difficult for him to agree to the compensation and the appellant agreed to this.
The Commission adjourns the mater to 10 June 2009 at 12.30PM.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 10 June 2009:
The following were present Complainant: Mr. Rakesh Agarwal Respondent : Mr. P.S.Chaggar, PIO and Joint Registrar The PIO states that the denial of query 2 is on the basis of Section 8(1)(j). The PIO was asked to what part of the information would be covered by Section 8(1)(j) which he felt could not be given. The PIO stated that the residential addresses of the Magistrates are personal information and giving these would not be appropriate. This was discussed with the appellant and it was decided that the entire information from the application for the position leading to the appointment of the Magistrate would be given for those who are in service as on date in traffic courts. All file notings and correspondence based on which the appointments were made will be given. The residential address of the Magistrate would be severed under Section 10 of the RTI Act. The PIO states that if they come across any personal information which they feel needs to be severed they would severe these and inform the appellant and the Commission about this. The Commission would decide if this severe was in consonance with Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act.
The appellant states that " the public authority cannot demand any fee as the deficient fee because I have complied with Section 6(1) which states that the request for information shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee. Further the public authority has demanded fee for filing fist appeal for which there is no provision in the RTI Act and the public authority is not competent to make rules demanding such a fee for filing an appeal. Therefore I pray for all the reliefs as stated in my complaint."
The Commission sees that this issue comes in because of the fact that the appellant filed for information with the office of District Judge-I and Sessions Judge, which is governed by the Central Rules. The information however is with Delhi High Court which being a competent authority has framed its own rules and has an application fee of Rs.50/-. This Commission would not like to adjudicate the matter of the Delhi Court Rules since it does not have the jurisdiction over this.
Decision:
The Complaint is allowed.
The PIO has stated that since the court is on vacation during the month of June and only this skeleton staff in the concerned branches would be available, it would not be possible for the PIO to collect and collate the information during the month of June 2009.
The Commission finds it difficult to accept that any public authority can claim a vacation from RTI for one month which is not been provided for in the law. However, keeping the PIO's contention in mind the Commission directs that the information will be provided to the appellant before 15 July 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 10 June 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) (AK)