Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The petitioner in a reply dated 21.05.2015 however stated that the functions of a notary are confidential in nature. Reliance was placed on the statutory provisions of the RTI Act and the Evidence Act. It was urged that a third party has no locus to enquire about confidential information of hundreds of entries noted by a notary public in his register which are third party transactions.

6. It is further stated that as Sh. Nand Lal the respondent No.1 was enquiring about the old records, the petitioner started looking into the old records which were kept along with the disposed off matters. On searching, the petitioner found some of the records and documents were eaten by termites. Only the record for the year 2013 (half eaten by termites) could be cleaned and recovered. The petitioner lodged an FIR regarding the damage done to the records in PS Tilak Marg on 25.05.2015. Information to this effect was also sent to the respondent vide letter dated 04.08.2015.

7. On 07.04.2016, respondent No. 2 again sought the following information:-

     "i.    To furnish
            a)      List of Notary Register damaged by termite,
            b)      list of those survived termite attack.
            c)      partially damaged register,
            d)      Report of inquiry and action taken report on loss of

registers due to termite along with the names of notaries and officers responsible for this serious negligence, whether the notary, the custodian of their registers, if reported to the CPIO about termite attack, alongwith the relevant papers, what action was taken.

ii. To produce remains of registers damaged by termite before the commission.

iii. To furnish the certified copies of the extracts from the notary registers as sought under points 3 and 4 of the RTI application."

8. On 11.04.2016, the petitioner appeared before the CIC and made her submissions.

9. Vide order dated 11.4.2016 CIC observed that the Notary has a legal duty to protect and preserve records/Registers. If records are eaten by termites, the Notary owes an explanation to the people why she failed to prevent it. The CIC further held the petitioner to be a deemed PIO and issued a show cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed against her. The CIC by its order dated 03.05.2016 concluded that it was a glaring example of poor record maintenance leading to „inaccess‟. It was noted by the Commission that this is a serious negligence, lethargy in complacence and preservation of the public records. It is also stated that the petitioner being a public authority could not show any system to protect the registers. It is also noted that neither the PIO nor the Notary showed any sign of regret or remorse about termite destruction. It was noted that the ground of „file missing‟ or „not traceable‟ or „eaten away by termites‟ is a ground which has no legal base and amounts to breach of the Public Records Act, 1993. The impugned order concludes that the negligence is writ large and res ipsa loquitor applies. The public authority has a duty to initiate action. Based on the above, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on the petitioner. The appellate authority was directed to recover the said amount from the salary of the petitioner-Ms.Meena Sharma. A direction was again issued to the petitioner to provide annual returns of 2008 along with the attached documents. The petitioner was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- to respondent No.1.

20. Ms. Meena Sharma, the Notary and advocate cannot take advantage of termite attack, claim innocence and escape liability to disclose information as per RTI Act. Her written and oral representation reflected her negligent record management and carelessness towards access to Information also. Basic human foresight and prudence could reasonably anticipate the possibility of termites, and lack of It Is certainly a 'serious negligence'. Her explanation In response to CIC show cause notice Is not satisfactory. She has also exhibited same attitude of negligence and RTI attitude during her presentation before the Commission.