The main legal point established in the judgment is that when information can be accessed through a mechanism provided in a statute, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to.

JUDGMENT :

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 r/w 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to impugn the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. Other connected reliefs are also sought.

2. The petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act on 4.5.2018. The copy of the application is not attached to the Writ Petition. However, the appellate authority of NGT has reproduced the contents of the application in its order. By the said application the petitioner sought details of directions passed by NGT against the respondent in the matter being OA 177/2013 titled Sushil Raghav vs. State of UP and Others and M.A.No. 640 titled Sushil Raghav vs. State of UP.P.& Ors.

3. As is apparent from the record, the CPIO by his reply dated 31.5.2018 noted that all orders and judgments pronounced by NGT are uploaded on the website (www.greentribunal.gov.in ). Same can be downloaded from the website. As the applicant had also sought copies of all documents the reply stated that the applicant is at liberty to apply for certified copies at the Filing Counter of NGT.

4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 31.5.2018 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The same was disposed of on 13.8.2018 stating that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the view taken by the CPIO. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

5. A second appeal was filed before CIC. CIC by the impugned order dated 6.5.2019 and 28.5.2019 upheld the order holding that the appellant can obtain copies in terms of NGT (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2011. Regarding information relating to third parties same are exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the CIC issued a strict warning to the Deputy Commissioner, MHRD then CPIO who failed to transfer the relevant RTI Application to CPIO NGT.

6. I have heard the petitioner appearing in person. He has vehemently argued that a warning had been issued to the wrong CPIO as the said CPIO never dealt with the case of the petitioner. He secondly submits that when he has a right to seek copies of orders under the RTI Act he cannot be denied the same on the ground that he is free to apply for certified copies of the same from the NGT. He insists that he does not wish to follow the procedure for applying for certified copies and should be granted the copies in exercise of his rights under the RTI Act.

7. As far as the second plea of the petitioner is concerned, namely, that oblivious of the procedure and rules, NGT should grant certified copies under the RTI Act, the said submission is misplaced. Reference in this context may be had to the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Registry Supreme Court of India vs. R.S.Mishra, 2017 (244) DLT 179. That was a case in which the RTI application had sought information regarding a judicial matter in which the applicant himself was a party. In those circumstances, this court held as follows:-

“45. Section 22 of the RTI Act has an overriding effect over other laws in case there are inconsistencies. However, Section 22 of the RTI Act does not contemplate to override those legislations, which aims to ensure access to information.

46. In fact, it contemplates harmonious existence with the other enactments which, like the RTI Act, also provides for dissemination of information. In Namit Sharma Vs. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745, the Supreme Court has held as under:-

“79. Let us now examine some other prerequisites of vital significance in the functioning of the Commission. In terms of Section 22 of this Act, the provisions of the Act are to be given effect to, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. This Act is, therefore, to prevail over the specified Acts and even instruments. The same, however, is only to the e