Central Information Commission
Mr.Ashok Kumar Mittal vs State Bank Of Patiala on 12 November, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000490AT
Dated, the 12 November, 2010.
th
Appellant : Shri Ashok Kumar Mittal
Respondent : State Bank of Patiala
s This matter came up for hearing on 11.11.2010 pursuant to Commission's notice dated 25.10.2010. Appellant was absent when called, while the respondents were represented by Shri H.N. Nagraj, DGM & CPIO and Shri M. Ramesh, Deputy Manager (Law).
2. Appellant's RTIapplication dated 28.12.2009 solicited information pertaining to a thirdparty, viz. Mr.Mehar Chander Chhabra, who was an erstwhile employee of the Bank. The thirdparty was apparently the subject of a criminal investigation and prosecution against which he was discharged from the service of the State Bank of Patiala.
3. Appellant's RTIqueries read as follows: "1) Copy of the Court order holding him guilty,
2) Copy of the disciplinary FINAL report,
3) Copy of the action taken report connected with the matter, and
4) Status of the appeal filed by him against the Order of the CBI Special Court, Ambala."
4. Of the above, the information sought through query at Sl.No.1 was denied by the respondents on the ground that the court order should be CIC_SM_A_2010_000490_M_45860.doc Page 1 of 4 properly sought from the appropriate courts, which had their own independent procedure for giving out copies. The Bank was only a party to the proceeding and had, in that capacity, received a copy of the court order. They were not the original 'holders' of the order.
5. I agree with the respondents that the court order cannot be obtained from the party to the court proceeding through an RTI application. The proper course of action for someone seeking a court order is to approach the appropriate court under the court's own Rules to seek copy of the court order. A party to a court proceeding cannot be compelled to share with an RTIapplicant the court order. This is consistent with Commission's decision in S. Haja Najeemudeen Vs. IVRI; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00321; Date of Decision: 23.11.2006.
6. It is accordingly directed that this item of information need not be disclosed.
7. As far as the request figuring at Sl.No.4 is concerned, respondents have rightly stated that they were not in control of this information, which was between the courts and the appellant.
8. Accordingly, there shall be no disclosure obligation for this item of information.
9. Items at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 pertain to the disciplinary final report and action taken report. Respondents explained that there was no disciplinary proceeding in this matter, but only a discharge order, which was issued, as the thirdparty was convicted by the court proceeding against corruption.
10. Respondents are unwilling to provide this information to the appellant on the ground that he is nowhere connected with the matter which was between the public authority ― the Bank, the investigating CIC_SM_A_2010_000490_M_45860.doc Page 2 of 4 agency, the courts and the thirdparty. They have cited Section 8(1)(j) in support of their contention not to disclose the information.
11. According to decision dated 30.07.2010 by Justice S. Muralidhar of the Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejariwal case (W.P. (C) 6614/2008, W.P. (C) 8999/2008 and W.P. (C) 8407/2009), matters between public authority and a thirdparty are personal to the thirdparty, which, if disclosed, should be only after following the procedure established under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. Otherwise, a decision has to be made whether or not the information is disclosable given the provisions of the RTI Act, especially Section 8(1)(j).
12. It has been the decision of this Commission in Amarjeet Singh Vs. DG Vigilance Customs & Central Excise; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2009/ 000821; Date of Decision: 16.03.2010, where it was held: "18. I conclude that an RTIapplicant can seek information not only pertaining to himself in investigation ongoing or closed but also against a thirdparty in a similar matter. The request will nodoubt be examined within the scope of the exemptionSections of the RTI Act as well as Section 11(1) on account of its confidentiality, if any such as that arises from action by the public authority under Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. But such information thirdparty or otherwise cannot be denied only on the ground that it was personal to an employee and that no public interest warranted its disclosure."
13. In that light, the present information in these two queries is disclosable.
14. It is directed that the requested information be provided to the appellant within two weeks.
CIC_SM_A_2010_000490_M_45860.doc Page 3 of 4
15. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
16. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER CIC_SM_A_2010_000490_M_45860.doc Page 4 of 4