के (cid:3)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:18), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/REVDP/A/2024/602592 Brijesh Gupta .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, SDM Kanjhawala, DC Office Complex, Kanjhawala, Delhi - 110081 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 22.05.2025 Date of Decision : 20.06.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 19.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 09.10.2023 First appeal filed on : 20.08.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 07.11.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17.01.2023 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:

“1. Please provide order sheets of all the hearing dates in the matter of Collector of Stamps Vs. Murliwala Infrastructure Private Limited in the court of RA/SDM (Kanjhawala).

2. What is the next date of hearing in the matter of Collector of Stamps Vs. Murliwala Infrastructure Private Limited in the court of RA/SDM (Kanjhawala).”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.10.2023 stating as under:

“The applicant is requested to apply for the said copies by applying CA-1 Form after paying requisite fee.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 07.11.2023, held as under:

“Heard the submissions and gone through the records, I find that the PIO/SDM (Kanjhawala), has not provided the information to the appellant. Therefore, PIO/SDM(Kanjhawala), (North West) is hereby directed to provide complete information to the appellant within 15 days of receipt of this order as per available office record other than third party information. Further, the applicant is directed to visit the office under the intimation to PIO for inspection of records. Appeal is disposed off accordingly.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Parasher, Senior Assistant, attended the hearing in person.

5. Shri Sunil Bhatia stated that he is attending the hearing on behalf of the Appellant, but no authorisation letter by the Appellant has been placed on record and accordingly the Appellant is marked absent in the hearing.

6. The Respondent submitted that a suitable reply in terms of RTI Act has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 09.10.2023.

Decision:

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujrat and Another [(2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 702], dated 04.03.2020, wherein it has been held as under:

“41. We do not find any merit in the above submission and that such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the information/ certified copies of the documents. When there is effective machinery for having access to information or obtaining certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reason for which the certified copies are required, we do not find any justification for invoking 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources which the preamble of the RTI act itself intends to avoid.

42. We summarise our conclusion:

42.1. Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reason for seeking the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI act; but merely lays down a dif