Apka Adhikar

Delhi High Court Order Bhagat Singh v CIC

He filed a RTI application to the Delhi Commissioner of Police and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) asking what they have done pursuant to High Court’s order. There was no proper response from either of the offices. He approached CIC. CIC acknowledged that he should have been given information and imposed penalty. However, later that penalty was removed and Complaint of petitioner was summarily dismissed. Hence he filed case before High Court.The Delhi High Court dismissed the case.

Writ of Ajay Goel

Delhi High Court Decision PDF File

An applicant sought information about the business of the petitioner firm, V V Minerals, (Registered under Indian Partnership Act) from the Department of Geology and Mining. The PIO sought exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI act and did not disclose the information. On filing first appeal, the first appellate authority allowed the appeal and ordered the PIO to provide information to the applicant.

V V Minerals filed the writ against this order of the Appellate Authority and sought the direction of the Court to quash the orders of the Appellate Authority on three grounds viz:

(i) the information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d)of the RTI Act;

(ii) if the appellate authority wants to disclose the information, he must give a notice to the third party (the petitioner) under section 11(3) read with 19(4) of the RTI act prior to deciding on the disclosure of the information; and

(iii) the applicant has no right to seek such information as he is a business competitor and a person of not good condust and character.

The Court held that if the information is available with the state and such information is in exclusive custody of the state, the question of seeking any opinion from the third party on such issue may not arise, especially, when they are public documents. By disclosure, the court further held, no business interest of the petitioner is affected. On the other hand, such a disclosure may help any party to act upon those documents and take appropriate step. The Court, on dealing with the exemption under section 8(1)(d) held that the section 8(1)(d) only talks about Commercial Confidence and Trade Secret, disclosure of which may harm the competitive position of the third party. Further, the section does not provide any total bar and it is on the Competent Authority with the larger public interest, which warrants the disclosure of such information.

On the issue of the issuing notice to the third party, the court held that the petitioner was supposed to approach the Information Commission if it was not satisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority. The [Information] Commission is a wider body and clothed with the power of a Civil Court under Section 18(3) of the RTI Act, ad therefore, it is the misnomer to call it as a non- efficacious remedy.

On the Petitioner’s comment on the information seeker, the court held that if the information seeker is a business competitor and if he seeks documents related to trade secret, such information may be denied. But if any public document is sought, the motivation of such individual in seeking document has no relevancy as Central RTI Act does not provide any distinction between a Citizen and so called Motivated Citizen.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, but kept the option of the petitioner to move to the Information Commission open and the Commission may decide the matter on merit and in accordance with law.

Order of Court V V Mineral v Director of Geology

Diamond Jubilee Higher Secondary School v Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 6777/2007 and CM 12826-827/2007
ARVIND KEJRIWAL ….. Petitioner
Through Mr. Colin Gansalves, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Diviya Jyoti, Ms. Ratika Mehrotra, Advocates
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION and ORS ….. Respondents
Through Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG with Mr. Gaurav
Duggal, Mr. Chetal Chawla, Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
Advocates for R-3/UOI.
Prof. K.K. Nigam, Advocate for CIC.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
O R D E R
14.09.2007
Mr. Gaurav Duggal, learned counsel states that the third respondent is
not a necessary party at this stage of the proceedings. Learned counsel for the
petitioner does not object to deletion of the said respondent from the array of
the parties. Ordered accordingly.
Mr. Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent Central Information
Commission is present on advance notice. After some hearing, Mr. Nigam, learned
counsel stated that it may be appropriate to remit the matter for due
consideration by a Bench of the Commission to be constituted by the Chief
Information Commissioner. Ordered
Contd……………..2
: 2 :
accordingly. The said Bench shall consider the application and complaint of the
present petitioner in accordance with the normal practice and in accordance with
law. The proceedings shall continue from the stage when the last public hearing
was held i.e. on 14.7.2006.
The writ petition and CM 12826-827/2007 are disposed off in terms of the
above statement of the first respondent. The said respondent shall take steps
to notify the petitioner and other necessary parties about the next date of
hearing.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J
SEPTEMBER 14, 2007
dkg
68
Page 1 of 1
http://courtnic.nic.in/dhcorder/dhcqrydisp_O.asp?pn=185678&yr=2007 10/10/2007

Requester of records was given information by PIO. The information related to submission by Reliance Industries. Reliance was not given an opportunity to object to the release of information. The Gujarat SIC upheld the decision of PIO. Reliance filed writ in Gujarat High Court.

The court read RTI Act, as making it an obligation on PIO to inform third parties whose rights may be compromised by release of information. The court also gave right of first appeal and second appeal to the third parties.

Reliance_Industries_High_Court_Decision

Electronics and Computer Software Promotion Council argued that it is not a Public Agency under RTI Act. The Delhi High Court rejected the argument and ruled that CIC was correct in ruling that the council was a Public Agency.

The full text of the Delhi High Court is here, and can be downloaded in PDF format:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P(C) No.11434/2006

19.07.2006

Date of decision : July 19, 2006

ELECTRONICS and COMPUTER SOFTWARE
EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL ……… PETITIONER
Through: Mr.Sudhansu Batra, Advocate

Versus

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIION ……… RESPONDENTS.
and ORS
Through: Mr.S.K. Dubey, Advocate

CORAM :-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed YES
to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not ? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?

ANIL KUMAR, J. (Oral)

Respondent No.2, Mrs. Navneet Kaur, sought all documents and records of
Sexual Harassment Complaint Committee against two officials. On her application
a clarification was sought from the Department of Personnel whether a copy of
the report of the Committee could be furnished to respondent No.2 before the
disposal of the same by the Disciplinary Authority. On the advice of the
Department, the matter was referred to the Department of Women and Child
Development. By a communication dated 9th January, 2006, it was communicated
that the petitioner being a non-Governmental organization and non-funded by the
Government, the Right to Information Act was not applicable. ?
However, on appeal by respondent No.2 to Central Information Commission
against the said decision holding that Right to Information Act,2005 was not
applicable to the petitioner, it was held that in terms of Section 2(h) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner is an organization under the
administrative control of Department of Information Technology. Out of Rs.11.8
crore income for the year 2004-2005, the Grant-in-Aid from the Department of
Commerce and Information Technology was about Rs.6.8 crore and consequently it
was inferred that the petitioner is substantially financed by the Government. It
was thus held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is applicable to the
petitioner and petitioner was directed to furnish respondent No.2 a copy of
inquiry report and also copies of minutes of the Working Committee relating only
to the Inquiry Report and action taken thereon.
Despite the order of Central Information Commission, the information
which was directed to be given to respondent No.2 was not given entailing filing
of another proceeding by respondent No.2 which was disposed of by order dated
18th May, 2006. During the hearing, respondent No.2 had sought additional
information which was, however, declined to the petitioner holding that scope of
the decision dated 22nd March, 2006 could not be enlarged, however, the
Commission reiterated that petitioner is under the administrative control of
Department of Information Technology as CAG audits the accounts of petitioner;
annual report is laid in the Parliament through Department of Information
Technology; name of petitioner appears in the annual report of Department of
Information Technology and Department of Information Technology assign programs
and activities which are undertaken by the petitioner which were programs and
activities were communicated in the annual reports of the petitioner for 2004-
2005. In view of the administrative control of Department of Information
Technology on petitioner and substantial funding by the government, it was thus
held that the petitioner is a public authority under the definition of Right to
Information Act, 2005.
The petitioner has impugned the orders holding him to be a public
authority contending that the Grants-in-Aid are released by the Department of
Commerce, Department of Information Technology for specific programs/projects
and the grants are also received from international agencies like the United
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). The learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that since there is a distinction between funding of an
organization and funding of promotional programs/projects, therefore, it cannot
be inferred that the petitioner is substantially financed by the Government as
contemplated under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner also
relied on a letter dated 15th February, 2006 by the Ministry of Commerce and
Industry stipulating that petitioner is treated as an autonomous non-
Governmental organization and the employees of petitioner are not government
servants nor petitioner is required to seek clearance from the Government for
the appointment of officers. Post are created and so do the rules are framed by
the petitioner governing the service conditions of its employees and therefore
it is not under the Administrative Control of Department of Information
Technology.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the Working
Committee members of petitioner are the persons from private industries and has

relied on list of Working Committee members of the petitioner for 2004-2006 to
contend that it is not a public authority.
For the purpose of Section 2(h) of Right to Information Act, 2005, what
is to be seen is whether the body is owned and controlled or substantially
financed by the Government. Whether the funding is for specific
programs/projects carried on by the petitioner or funds are given not for any
specific program to the petitioner, will not make the petitioner not financed by
the Government. The Government can give the funds without specifying as to how
the funds are to be utilized and can also specify the manner and the programs on
which the funds are to be utilized. Specifying the manner in which the funds are
to be utilized rather will show more control of the Government on the
petitioner. Specifying the programs on which the funds are to utilized does not
negate the substantial funding of the petitioner as is sought to be canvassed by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have no hesitation in holding that in
the circumstances, as has been done in the orders impugned by the petitioner,
that the petitioner is substantially funded by the Government in the facts and
circumstances.
The Central Information Commission has held that petitioner is a public
authority on account of administrative control of Department of Information
Technology on the petitioner on the basis of various factors stipulated in its
order which are not negated on account of autonomous character of the petitioner
in framing its rules governing the service conditions of its employees and the
employees of the petitioner being not the Government servants. On the plea that
its employees are not government servants, the control of Department of
Information Technology cannot be negated. Therefore the probable inference is
that the petitioner is under the administrative control of Department of
Information Technology
The Working Committee Members of the petitioner from different industries
will also not negate the control of Department of Information Technology on the
petitioner and Petitioner’s substantial funding by the Government as
contemplated under Right to Information Act, 2005. Perusal of list of Working
Committee Members of petitioner for 2004-2006 rather reflects that it also has
the Government nominees and, consequently, it cannot be inferred that petitioner
will not be a public authority under the definition of the Right to Information
Act, 2005. From the objects of the petitioner also, the character of the
petitioner discharging public functions and being a public authority cannot be
negated.
In the circumstances, the orders impugned by the petitioner do not have
any jurisdictional error nor suffer from any material illegality. Therefore for
the reasons stated hereinabove, it is held that the petitioner is a public
authority as contemplated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and is liable
to render information as has been directed by the orders impugned in this
petition.

The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed.

July 19, 2006 ANIL KUMAR, J.
’sdp’
Export_Promotion_Council_v_CIC

Canara Bank challenged order of CIC in Kerala High Court. The bank refused to give information about transfer policy, and files on transfers of bank employees, to one of the employees. The bank gave the following three reasons.

1. Under the Right to Information Act only that information mentioned in Section 4 of the Act alone need be furnished.
2. The information requested is exempt from disclosure by virtue of sub sections (e) and (j) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, and
3. the information sought is so voluminous that it is physically impossible to furnish the same without employing considerable manpower and time.
The Court rejected all three arguments and ordered release of the information.

Following is the decision in PDF format

Canara Bank v CIC

This landmark case arose when CIC ruled for transparency in UPSC examination results. One applicant asked UPSC, under RTI, to reveal the marks she had scored, the marks needed to pass the examination, the method for grading the examination, and sample answers to the questions asked. UPSC refused to divulge any of the above information citing Exemption 8(1)(d) and (e).

CIC ruled that all of the above information was needed to be released to provide transparency in the functioning of UPSC. UPSC filed writ in Delhi High Court and the court issued a stay. Delhi High Court, under single presiding Justice Badar Ahmed ruled for CIC. UPSC appealed to the Court for hearing by a division bench. The bench has agreed to hear the case and has stayed the order of Justice Badar Ahmed. The matter is scheduled to be heard again on 25/9/07.
CIC_Decision_UPSC.pdf : This is the CIC Decision

UPSC_v_CIC.pdf This is the decision of the Mr. Justice Badar Ahmed of Delhi High Court

7/5/07_Order_for_Adournment

21/7/07_Order_Staying_Single_Judge_Verdict

30/7/07_Order_Rejoinder

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.                OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF:
Neelam Rajput                            …Petitioner
Versus

Central Information Commissioner                   …Respondents

Affidavit

I, Neelam Rajput, wife of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Rajput aged about 44years, resident of B-3/19, 1st Floor, Janakpuri, New Delhi hereby swear on affidavit hereunder:

1    That, I am the petitioner in the above-mentioned case and I am competent to swear this affidavit.

2    That I am filing this affidavit on the direction of this Hon’ble Court in the said matter on 17.08.2007.

3    That, the petitioner joined the Sahitya Academy (hereinafter “Academy”) on 29.01.1982 as Stenographer Grade II. On 09.07.1984, petitioner joined on the post of Stenographer Grade- I after qualifying into a test and an interview for the post. On 06.09.1996, with effect from 01.04.1994, the service of the petitioner was confirmed and the seniority list prepared in 1998 showed her on Sl. No. 2 where her date of appointment was shown as 09.07.1984. In the next seniority list prepared in 2000 and circulated on 28.09.2000, petitioner was placed on Sl. No. 5 with the date of joining as 01.04.1994. Petitioner challenged this seniority list in Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide Civil Writ Petition No. 187/2002 challenging the detriment caused to her because of making her junior in the seniority list.

4    That, in another Civil Writ Petition No. 5445/2002, the petitioner challenged the withdrawal of the benefit granted to her under Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme of the Academy. Under the said scheme, on 02.08.2000, petitioner was extended ACP benefits from 09.08.1999. This benefit was withdrawn vide orders dated 09/10.08.2002 19/21.08.2002 and an amount of Rs 28,153/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Three Only) was sought to be recovered from her in twelve instalments.

5    That, these two orders which affected petitioner’s vested rights were held by this Hon’ble Court as illegal. This Hon’ble Court passed a single order in both these cases on 16.11.2005 and issued following directions:

“29. In view of the foregoing discussion, the following directions are issued:

1.    The Petitioner is entitled to count her seniority as Stenographer w.e.f. 09.07.1984. The position reflected in the seniority list of 1998 is the correct one. The respondent Akademi shall accordingly, take steps to review and ensure that the seniority is restored, in line with her position shown in the 1998 list. This review shall be completed within 6 weeks from today;
2.    The two orders dated 09/10 .8.2002 and 19/21.8.2002 issued by the Akademi are quashed/set aside;
3.    The Akademi shall issue an order granting the ACP benefit to the Petitioner w.e.f. 09.08.1999, within 6 weeks;
4.    The above directions are independent, of and in addition to the Petitioner’s entitlement for promotion on the basis of seniority, as per rules.”

A copy order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 16.11.05 is marked and annexed as Annexure P–I.

6    That, pursuant to this order, the seniority of the petitioner and the ACP benefits were restored. But in the mean time, the promotion to the post of Sales Manager; which was granted to other staff of the Academy whose names were in the same seniority list prepared in 1998; was not extended to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No. 755/2006 in Civil Writ Petition No. 187 of 2002 in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. This petition was later withdrawn by the petitioner on account of the observation of the Hon’ble Court that the surviving grievance in respect of denial of promotion to the post of Sales Manager could not be adjudicated in these proceedings and as counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the contempt petition and initiate a substantive writ petition. This Hon’ble court granted the withdrawal to enable the petitioner to file a new writ to seek promotion to the post of Sales Manager. A copy of order passed by this Hon’ble Court in the Contempt petition no. 755/ 2006 in W.P. (Civil) No. 187/2002 dated 26.7.2006 is marked and annexed as Annexure P–II.

7    At the stage of hearing of the said contempt petition, the Academy filed a written statement in which, the Academy also annexed recruitment rules for the post of Sales manager and a circular dated 12.10.2001 at R-I and R-II of the written statement filed by the Academy. In column 6 of the recruitment rules, the essential and desirable qualification required for “direct recruitment” was indicated. while in column 7 of the same rules, it is stated that these requirements and also the age requirement were not applicable in case of the promotion of junior staff to the said post. A copy of said written submission of the Academy along with its annexure in the said contempt petition dated 20.7.2006 is marked and annexed as Annexure P–III.
8    That as the petitioner was preparing for filing the writ in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for the promotion to the post of the Sales Manager, she required some documents to put her stand in a better manner from the academy. In this regard, she filed the application under Right to Information Act which is under consideration in the abovementioned writ.

9    That the facts and materials mentioned in this affidavit is true to best of my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed thereupon.

Deponent

Verification
I, Neelam Rajput, wife of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Rajput aged about 44years, resident of B-3/19, 1st Floor, Janakpuri, New Delhi verify on 28th day of August of the year 2007 that the contents of this appeal are true and correct to best of my knowledge.

Deponent