Sunday 6 January 2013

Document can not be supplied under right to information act if said Document is not available

 It will be clear that even on that date also a
  specific stand was taken that there is no specific documentation made available
  on the basis of which reply of CMD was sent. If there is no document available,
  there is no question of supplying/furnishing such document to the appellant.
  The learned Single Judge has appreciated the said fact and held that when no
  document is available, there is no question of supplying such document. There
  could be no direction for furnishing of any such information.

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 
  LPA 14/2008
  Date of Decision : 11.1.2008
 
  MANOHAR SINGH ..... Appellant
 
  Through: Appellant in person.
 
 
versus
 
  N.T.P.C. and ANR ..... Respondent
 
  Through: Nemo.
   11.01.2008
 
 
  CORAM:
   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
   HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH


 

 
  1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by
  the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant
  herein. The appellant seems to be aggrieved by the response he received from the
  NTPC Limited pursuant to the order passed by the Central Information Commission
  (CIC).
  2. The appellant herein sought for the documents on the basis of which an
  order was passed by the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD). The said order
  was passed pursuant to a meeting of the appellant with the CMD on 5th December,
  2000. A communication thereafter was issued to the appellant on 3rd January,
  2001 whereby the appellant was informed that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director
  did a scrutiny of all the issues raised by the appellant in his meeting with him
  and he got himself apprised of the details concerning the grievances raised by
  the appellant. By the said communication the appellant was further informed
  that after full and thorough consideration of all the issues, it was decided by
  the CMD that the relief could not be granted to the appellant.
  3. Relying on the aforesaid communication the appellant has stated that
  while taking the aforesaid decision the CMD must have received certain documents
  and has prepared certain copies which could be furnished to him in terms of the
  provision of the Right to Information Act. The aforesaid request was
  considered at various levels. Even the Information Commissioner, Central
  Information Centre was moved by the appellant who passed an order on 15th
  February, 2007. The decision reads as follows:-
  ?3. The CPIO erred in informing the appellant that the information
  sought was exempt under section 8(1) (j). This covers only if a citizen seeks
 
 
  information of personal nature of a third party but not of his own. I have seen
  the representation of the appellant dated 4/5-12-2000 and the reply dated
  3.1.2001 that was sent to the appellant. In his representation given during
  personal hearing before the CMD, the appellant had raised a number of issues
  relating to his service matters. After the personal hearing, a reply was sent
  to the appellant stating that the CMD had scrutinized all the issues raised by
  the appellant and after thorough consideration of all the issues, it was not
  possible to grant the relief specified by the appellant. According to the AA
  there are no records, on the basis of which the above reply was sent, were
  available. If no records are available, the question of furnishing a copy of
  the same does not arise. However, considering the fact that when a decision of
  the CMD is conveyed, it should have been based on some noting made or decision
  given by him in writing. I therefore direct the CPIO to make one more effort to
  find out whether any record of the noting or decision is available and intimate
  the result of the same to the appellant within 15 days of this Decision.?
  4. After the aforesaid order was issued, the same was placed before the
  respondent-NTPC by the appellant seeking for compliance of the order passed by
  the CIC. A communication was thereafter issued to the appellant by the NTPC
  wherein after making reference to the order of the CIC dated 15.02.2007 it was
  intimated that there was no written record in CMD's Office which led to passing
  of the order dated 3.1.2001. It was also made clear in the said letter that
  'Meet CMD Forum' is a benevolent gesture from CMD, NTPC to meet employees and
  discuss their professional/personal issues with a view to help them and the same
  is not a formal/structured redressal procedure and therefore, no background
  documentation is done in such a meeting between the CMD. The aforesaid stand
  taken by the NTPC seems to have been taken by the NTPC throughout for which a
  reference is made to the earlier communication issued to the appellant by the
  NTPC dated 10th August, 2006. It will be clear that even on that date also a
  specific stand was taken that there is no specific documentation made available
  on the basis of which reply of CMD was sent. If there is no document available,
  there is no question of supplying/furnishing such document to the appellant.
  The learned Single Judge has appreciated the said fact and held that when no
  document is available, there is no question of supplying such document. There
  could be no direction for furnishing of any such information.
  5. We find no error in the aforesaid judgment. It was submitted by
  the appellant, who appears in person that Information Commissioner had himself
  stated that if the decision of CMD is conveyed, there could be some noting or
  decision given by him in writing and, therefore, if any such record is
  available, the same could and should be supplied to the appellant. The
  appellant is focussing on the aforesaid observations of the Information
  Commissioner but while doing so he has overlooked that there is also a finding
  in the said order of the Information Commissioner to the effect that if no
  records are available, there would be no question of furnishing any copy of
  the same and, therefore, there might not be directions to furnish the records,
  if the same is not in existence. In that view of the matter, we find no merit
  in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
  CHIEF JUSTICE
 
 
  JANUARY 11, 2008 ARUNA SURESH, J
  vk
  ?UNREPORTABLE?
  18#
  
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment