Section 8(1) (e), (g) & (j) of the RTI Act:
There were four writ petitions before the court.
In these petitions, the issue involved was whether the copies of office notings recorded on the file of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the Department seeking its advice can be accessed in the RTI Act or not by the person to whom such advice relates.
When one G.S. Sandhu sought information from UPSC to furnish him in respect of departmental proceedings against him, information sought was denied by PIO & FAA. However the Central Information Commission directed the UPSC to disclose the nothings relating to the matter in hand to the respondent, with liberty to the petitioner-UPSC to obliterate the name and designation of the officer who made the said notings.
Before the H.C.of Delhi, UPSC assailed the Commission on four different grounds as under:
(I)There is a fiduciary relationship between UPSC and the department which seeks its advice and the information provided by the Department is held by UPSC in trust for it. The said information, therefore, is exempted from disclosure u/s. 8(1) (e) of the Act, (ii) the file notings and the correspondences exchanged between UPSC and the department seeking its advice may contain information relating not only to the information seeker but also to other persons and departments and institutions, which, being personal information, is exempt from disclosure u/s. 8(1) (j) of the Act, (iii) the officers who record the notings on the file of UPSC are mainly drawn on deputation from various departments. If their identity is disclosed, they may be subjected to violence, intimidation and harassment by the persons against whom an adverse note is recorded and if the said officer of UPSC, on repatriation to his parent department, happens to be posted under the person against whom an adverse noting was recorded by him, such an officer may be targeted and harassed by the person against whom the note was recorded. Such an information, therefore, is exempt from disclosure u/s. 8(1) (g) of the Act and (iv) the notings recorded by UPSC officer on the file are only inputs given to the Commission to enable it to render an appropriate advice to the concerned department and are not binding upon the Commission. Therefore, such information is not really necessary for the employee who is facing departmental inquiry, since he is concerned only with the advice ultimately rendered by UPSC to his department and not the noting meant for consideration of the Commission.
After detailed discussion & analysis of two Supreme Court decisions in (i) Central Board of Secondary Education and Another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (ii) Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hessian Abbas Rizvi & Another, the High Court of Delhi issued the following directions:
(i) The copies of office notings recorded in the file of UPSC as well as the copies of the correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the Department by which its advice was sought, to the extent it was sought, shall be provided to the respondent after removing from the notings and correspondence, (a) the date of the noting and the letter, as the case may be; (b) the name and designation of the person recording the noting and writing the letter and; (c) any other indication in the noting and/or correspondence which may reveal or tend to reveal the identity of author of the noting/letter, as the case may be;
(II) If the notings and /or correspondence referred in (i) above contains personal information relating to a third party, such information will be excluded while providing the information sought by the respondent;
[Union Public Service Commission vs. G.S. Sandhu & Ors: Decided on 10.10.2013; RTIR IV (2013)216 (Delhi)]
Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005:
K.K. Mishra, the appellant through his RTI application dated 16.01.2012 sought certified copies in respect of M/s. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd., Bangalore showing composition of Board of Directors and Members/Shareholders of the Company as filed by the Company from time to time with ROC, Karnataka Bangalore from 1.1.2000 onwards.
The CPIO responded by citing one earlier decision of the Commission wherein it was held as under:
“The Registrar of Companies has already put in place system for disclosure of information including the procedure for payment of cost for providing the information. There is no denial of information to the applicant. There is, therefore, no reason why the procedure of the Registrar of Companies in respect of disclosure of information should not be adhered to and followed. As the working of the Office of Registrar of Companies is transparent in so far as public activities are concerned, there is no justification for invoking the cost and fee rules as prescribed under the RTI Act. In case, however, there is any hindrance in providing access to the documents which are expected to be in the public domain, the provisions of the RTI Act could be invoked. In view of this, there is no justification for not respecting the fee and cost rules of the Registrar of Companies as per the relevant provisions under Section 610 of the Companies Act”.
Before the Commission, the appellant stated that for getting the information, he has to first register himself before he can access the information and thereafter pay Rs. 50/- for viewing the information for three hours. Whereas, under RTI Rules, the inspection of documents is free for first hour and thereafter the charges are Rs. 5/- for every 15 minutes. The appellant states that he paid Rs. 50/- through internet banking, but thereafter there were no instructions on the website as to how to access the information on net, the fee payable is Rs. 25/- per page as against Rs. 2/- per page prescribed under RTI Rules. The appellant contested that it would not be appropriate for the CIC to allow ROC to charge such exorbitant rates for information which is in direct conflict with the provisions of the RTI Act and rules. The appellant stated during that hearing that in the above said order specifically mentioned that in case of hindrance in providing access to the documents, the provisions of the RTI Act could be invoked. The respondent CPIO on the other hand stated that in case the appellant is not able to access the information from the website of the ROC, he can approach the help Desk which is placed In their Office to assist the people to access information on the website.
The Commission then quoted from one order of the High Court of Delhi (in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Another) as under:
34. “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 sec-tion 610 of the Companies Act is governed by the Companies (Central Government) 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 funds to require the creation and maintenance of two parallel machineries by the ROC – one u/s. 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.”
35. “The right to information is required to be balanced with the need to optimize use of limited fiscal resources. In this context I may refer to the relevant extract of preamble to the RTI Act which, inter alia, provides……………………………………………..”
41. “Firstly, I may notice that I do not find anything inconsistent between the schemes provided u/s. 610 of the Companies Act and the provisions of the RTI Act. Merely because a different charge is collected for providing information under Section 610 of the Companies Act than that prescribed as the fee for providing information under the RTI Act does not lead to an inconsistency in the pro-visions of these two enactments. Even otherwise, the provisions of the RTI Act would not override the provision contained in Section 610 of the Com-panies Act. Section 610 of the Companies Act is an earlier piece of legislation. The said provision was introduced in the Companies Act, 1956 at the time of its enactment in the year 1956 itself. On the other hand, the RTI Act is a much later enactment, enacted in the year 2005. The RTI Act is a general law/enactment which deals with the right of a citizen to access information available with a public authority, subject to the conditions and limitation prescribed in the said Act. On the other hand Section 610 of the Companies Act is a piece of special legislation, which deals specifically with the right of any person to inspect and obtain records i.e. information from the ROC. Therefore, the later general law cannot be read or understood to have abrogated the earlier special law.”
In view of above Order, the Commission found no reason to disagree with the reply of office of the Register of companies, Karnataka, Bangalore
[K.K. Mishra vs. office of the ROC, Karnataka, Ban-galore decided on 20.09.2013 in CIC/SS/A/2012/2005: RTIR IV (2013)181(CIC)]
Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005
In a short order of CIC, it is decided that paying application fees through money order is as good as paying cash and hence the RTI application cannot be rejected on the ground that mode of paying fees is not as per rules. Also in the Order, the Commission referred to the full bench decision reported in BCAJ of January 2014.
In the light of above the Commission decided that the CPIO should have accepted the RTI application and dealt with the same as per the provisions of the RTI Act
[S. Viswanatha Rao vs. Department of Posts, Secunderabad: decided on 27.09.2013: CIC/ BS/C/2012/000279/3569: RTIR IV (2013) 163 (CIC)]
”
