Central Information Commission
Mr. Bindeshwar Sah vs High Court on 19 December, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000860 & 861
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 19 December 2012
Date of decision : 19 December 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Bindeshwar Sah,
Advocate, Plot No. 150,
Road No. 22 A, Srikrishna Nagar,
Patna.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Patna High Court,
Patna.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Ajay Nath Jha, Joint Registrar was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard both these cases together. Both the parties were present in the Patna studio of the NIC. We heard their submissions.
3. In two separate RTI applications, the Appellant had sought the following items of information:
i. Copies of the relevant documents showing the basis of the transfer of Justice Dharanidhar Jha from Patna to Allahabad High Court and ii. details of the grant of regular and anticipatory bail by all the district courts of Bihar during the year 2011.
4. The CPIO had refused to disclose the first item on the ground that the information was personal in nature and was exempt from disclosure under the provisions of subsection 1(j) of section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In CIC/SM/A/2012/000860 & 861 respect of the second item, he had stated that this information might be obtained from the public authorities of the civil courts.
5. During the hearing, the Appellant argued that if the High Court did not hold the information regarding the regular and anticipatory bail by the district courts, the CPIO should have transferred his RTI application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act. We do not agree with him. From the RTI application itself, it is clear that the Appellant knows that he is seeking information about the regular and anticipatory bail applications filed before the district courts. Therefore, he had no reason to seek this information from the High Court because the district courts themselves are public authorities under the provisions of the RTI Act. The request for information is not to be converted into a quiz contest. If the information seeker knows about the location of the information, he is supposed to seek the information from the public authority concerned and not from any other. In any case, the obligation of the CPIO under section 6(3) of the RTI Act is limited only to transferring the RTI application to another public authority and not to several public authorities as is the case here. Therefore, we do not find anything wrong in the decision of the CPIO in advising him to obtain the information from the civil courts directly.
6. As far as the other item of information is concerned, we are not sure if the decision to transfer one judge of the High Court to another is available at the High Court level at all. We understand that the decision to transfer a judge of the High Court is taken at the level of the Supreme Court of India. Even if the Patna High Court has any knowledge about the basis for the transfer of this particular judge to the Allahabad High Court, we tend to agree with the decision of the CPIO that this information should not be disclosed being personal in nature and the disclosure of which has the potential to cause unwarranted CIC/SM/A/2012/000860 & 861 invasion of the privacy of the individual concerned.
7. Thus, neither item of information sought can be disclosed. The appeals are disposed off accordingly
8. 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/000860 & 861