##PAGE1##

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: October 29^th, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC011468472011 + W.P.(C) 7340/2011 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Priyam Mehta, Advocate.

versus P.D.GUPTA .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“i. Call for record & proceedings of the entire case in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000761-SM and Quash/set aside the Order dated 26.05.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000761-SM filed by Shri PD Gupta/Respondent;”

2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner assails the order dated 26.05.2011 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘CIC’), whereby the petitioner was directed to locate the information pertaining to the cases wherein judgments were reserved and not pronounced despite the lapse of two months.

3. The respondent is a former judicial officer. On 02.04.2009, the respondent applied to the Public Information Officer (hereafter referred to as ‘PIO’) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘RTI Act’) vide Diary No. 115/09. In query 5(2), the respondent stated that in W.P.(C) 2362/2002, filed by him against this Court, arguments were heard on 31.07.2007 by a Division Bench presided over by then Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, and the judgment was pronounced on 02.05.2008. The respondent, therefore, sought complete details of all the cases heard by the Hon’ble Judge, sitting singly or in a Division Bench, in which judgment was delivered more than two months after the conclusion of arguments.

4. Since no reply was received within thirty days, the respondent filed a first appeal on 12.05.2009 under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Thereafter, the PIO replied on 15.05.2009 that “No such data is specifically maintained and compiled.”

5. By letter dated 29.05.2009 addressed to the First Appellate Authority, the respondent alleged that the information had been deliberately withheld and “may be readily available” with the Court Master or Private Secretary of the learned Judge, the Registrar (Admn.-Judicial) and the office of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The First Appellate Authority by order dated 06.06.2009, found no infirmity in the reply of the PIO, as no such data was maintained, and rejected the appeal.

6. Aggrieved by the order of First Appellate Authority, the respondent preferred a Second Appeal dated 13.07.2009 before the learned CIC, wherein the respondent pressed only for the aforesaid query. The petitioner had contended that, firstly, the information sought is not maintained, and secondly, the information was being furnished to the Hon’ble Chief Justice in a sealed cover and was held in a fiduciary capacity and was thus exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The learned CIC rejected both contentions by observing that, owing to the practice of Court Masters compiling such lists every month, the information “should be available”, and that its disclosure would serve a larger public interest. By order dated 26.05.2011, the learned CIC noted:

“5. In the light of the above, we would like to direct the CPIO to locate the relevant records, such as the reports furnished by the Court Masters to the Chief Justice of the High Court through the Registrar every month and to provide photocopies of those reports containing the lists of cases relevant to the RTI request of the Appellant within 15 working days from the receipt of this order. Since the Appellant has not indicated a timeframe for this information and the Respondents pointed out that Honourable Justice Sikri had been in the High Court for a very long time and compiling information about the reserved orders passed by him or benches in which he had been a member judge would be impossible and would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, we