Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V.K. JAIN, J.
INDERJEET SINGH – Petitioner
versus
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, NCDRC & ANR. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.5232/2013
Decided On : 23.08.2013
RTI - Right to Information - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Regulation 22 - The court discussed the provisions of Regulation 22 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, which allows only parties in dispute or their agents to inspect records. The court also referred to Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act, which states that the CPIO is not obligated to transmit information expressly forbidden by any court of law or tribunal. The court upheld the decision of the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority, stating that no third party can inspect the records of a decided case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought information regarding the right of a third party to inspect the file of a decided case. The CPIO and the First Appellate Authority responded that only parties in dispute or their agents are allowed to inspect the records, and no third party is included within the framework of Regulation 22.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the information sought by the petitioner was duly provided to him, and there was no merit in the petition. The petition was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether a third party has the right to inspect the file of a decided case, and the related procedures and regulations for obtaining information from the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the provisions of Regulation 22 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, and Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act, stating that no third party can inspect the records of a decided case.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner before this Court applied to CPIO of the National Consumer Redressal Commission seeking certain information. The said application was responded by the CPIO on 2.4.2012. The queries of the petitioner and their respective replies given by CPIO read as under:
Questions Reply
1. Can a Third Party inspect the file in a DECIDED case of a petition, Revision Petition, Review Petition Inspection of records in pursuance of Regulation no.22 of Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 is permissible only to the parties (parties in dispute or their agents), Regulation 22 of the Consumer Protection reproduced hereunder: “Inspection of records – Parties (Parties in dispute) or their agents can inspect the records of any matter by filing an application on payment often rupees as fee.
2. If yes, then copy of the procedure, method, rules, fees may please be provided. Does not arise.
3. Can the complete set of papers relied upon in a DECIDED case be obtained from NCDRC. As per provisions of Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 – only a party to a dispute is entitled to any copy of the complaint, reply rejoinder or any other annexure. Certified copy of the order passed therein, can however be obtained by a third party.
4. If yes, then detailed procedure like format of the application, fee, timings, working hours may please be given. Does not arise
5. Is there any discretion whether to allow an application for information as per para (3) or reject it? If yes, then who is the competent authority and what are the parameters/ guidelines or rejection. May please be provided. Please refer reply to point no.3 above. Nothing more is available to add.
6. What are the different channels/rules/ regulations/ Act available to obtain the desired information form NCDRC for an information seeker. The details thereof may please be provided. Please visit our website: www.ncdrc.nic.in for go through the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005- for information.
7. Are there any specific rules and regulations or procedure for disclosure of information to third party. Please refer reply to point no.3 above, Nothing more is available to add.
8. Is there any bar to provide information to the Third Party? If so, under which provision, complete details may please be provided. Please refer rely to point no.3 above, Nothing more is available to add.
2. Being aggrieved from the reply given by the CPIO, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.4.2012, inter alia, directed as under:
“Regulation 22 Inspect in of Records Parties or their agents can inspect the records of any matter by filing an application on payment of then rupees as fee.
On perusal of the records it is noticed that regulation 22 is the basis on which the CPIO has disposed of your application under RTI Act it lays down that the party or his agent can be allowed inspection of payment of the fee. To put it differently inspection if any can be allowed only to the parties. The rule making authority was conscious of the fact that permitting inspection to a person who is not a party would prejudicially effect the decision making process and thus 3rd party has not been included within the framework of Regulation 22. Having regard to this provision, parties or their agents alone can be permitted to inspect the records of any matter by observing the formalities indicating in the regulation.
Section 8(1)(b) points that CPIO is under no obligation to transit the information which has been expressly forbidden by any court of law or tribunal. Regulation 22 bars transmission of such information to third party. There may be an argument that regulation 22 does not expressly bar the third party from inspection. But from what is indicated in the regulation scope for inspection of records beyond the party, is not permissible. It may not have been specifically indicate
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
