Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kumar vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 23 January, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CADMT/C/2017/115807/SD
Rajesh Kumar ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
ALIO
Central Administrative Tribunal
2nd M.S.O Building, CGO Complex,
Nizam Place, 234/4, A.J.C Bose
Road, Kolkata - 700020. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 31/10/2016
CPIO replied on : 01/12/2016
First appeal filed on : 26/12/2016
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint dated : 28/02/2017
Date of Hearing : 08/01/2019
Date of Decision : 17/01/2019
Information sought:
The Complainant sought certified copy of order(s) passed in regard to O.A No. 1171/13 from the date of filing of said case till date of receipt of the instant RTI application.
Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-1
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Debashish Chakraborty, SO (Estt) & CPIO, Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata present through VC.
CPIO submitted that upon receipt of the RTI Application, requisite reply was provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 01.12.2016.
Decision Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that CPIO provided an appropriate reply on the RTI Application. Complainant has expressed his dissatisfaction over the fact that CPIO asked him to procure the certified copies as per the procedure laid down under CAT Rules of Practice, 1993 and has ignored the overriding effect of the RTI Act. In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar Of Companies & Ors vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr dated 01.06.2012 wherein a similar issue was adjudicated upon to arrive at the ratio that when a parallel statute specifically provides for procuring the same information, citizen cannot compel the public authority to provide such information under RTI Act. The operative portion of the said judgment is as under:
"34. From the above, it appears that the expression ―held by‖ or ―under the control of any public authority‖, in relation to ―informa on‖, means that information which is held by the public authority under its control to the exclusion of others. It cannot mean that information which the public authority has already ―let go‖, i.e. shared generally with the ci zens, and also that informa on, in respect of which there is a statutory mechanism evolved, (independent of the RTI Act) which obliges the public authority to share the same with the citizenry by following the prescribed procedure, and upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. This is so, because in respect of such information, which the public authority is statutorily obliged to disseminate, it cannot be said that the public authority ―holds‖ or ―controls‖ the same. There is no exclusivity in such holding or control. In fact, the control vests in the seeker of the information who has only to operate the statutorily prescribed mechanism to access the information. It is not this kind of information, which appears to fall within the meaning of the expression ―right to informa on‖, as the informa on in rela on to which the ―right to informa on‖ is specifically conferred by the RTI Act is that information which "is held by or under the control of any public authority".2
File No : CIC/CADMT/C/2017/115807/SD
35. The mere prescription of a higher charge in the other statutory mechanism (in this case Section 610 of the Companies Act), than that prescribed under the RTI Act does not make any difference whatsoever. The right available to any person to seek inspection/copies of documents under Section 610 of the Companies Act is governed by the Companies (Central Government's) General Rules & Forms, 1956, which are statutory rules and prescribe the fees for inspection of documents, etc. in Rule 21A. The said rules being statutory in nature and specific in their application, do not get overridden by the rules framed under the RTI Act with regard to prescription of fee for supply of information, which is general in nature, and apply to all kinds of applications made under the RTI Act to seek information. It would also be complete waste of public funds to require the creation and maintenance of two parallel machineries by the ROC - one under Section 610 of the Companies Act, and the other under the RTI Act to provide the same information to an applicant. It would lead to unnecessary and avoidable duplication of work and consequent expenditure.
36. The right to information is required to be balanced with the need to optimize use of limited fiscal resources...."
XXX "39. Therefore, if another statutory provision, created under any other law, vests the right to seek information and provides the mechanism for invoking the said right (which is also statutory, as in this case) that mechanism should be preserved and operated, and not destroyed merely because another general law created to empower the citizens to access information has subsequently been framed."
The aforesaid ratio applies to the facts of the present case also; hence Commission finds no scope of action against the CPIO.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) Haro Prasad Sen (हरो सादसेन) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26106140/ [email protected] दनांक / Date Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by User Date: 2019.01.25 12:15:21 IST 4