pil arjun sheoran v high court punjab- hc rti rules

ARJUN SHEORAN

…..Petitioner

Versus

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,

CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Dated Page(s) Court Fees

1. List of Dates and Events 13.02.2013 A --

2. Memo Of Parties 13.02.2013 1 50/-

3. Civil Writ Petition 13.02.2013 2-38 ---

4. Affidavit 13.02.2013 39-40 ---

5. Annexure P-1 (HC Rules) 14.08.2007 41-52 7.80/-

6. Annexure P-2 (Haryana Rules) 14.08.2007 53-65 8.45/-

7. Annexure P-3 (Punjab Rules) 14.08.2007 66-78 7.15/-

8. Annexure P-4 (Chandigarh Rules) 14.08.2007 79-91 8.45/-

9. Annexure P-5 (Central Rules) 25.09.2005 92 0.65/-

10. Annexure P-6 (Letter) 26.04.2011 93-94 1.30/-

11. Annexure P-7 (Appeal Rules) 28.10.2005 95-97 1.95/-

12. Annexure P-8 (Order of Commission) 21.11.08 98-125 18.20/-

Rs.103.95/-

Notes:

1. The questions of law canvassed in the present petition are contained in para No. 44 at Page

36 thereof.

2. Relevant Statute/Rules: The Right to Information Act, 2007, High Court of Punjab and

Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, the Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to

Information) Rules, 2007, Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,

Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007

th February, 2013 Petitioner in Person

Chandigarh (ARJUN SHEORAN, ADVOCATE)

Dated: 13

3. Any other case: Nil

4. As per the knowledge of the petitioner, no caveat petition has been filed in the matter.

5. The present petition is in the nature of a P.I.L.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 3265 of 2013


…..Petitioner

Versus

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,

CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

Total amount of Court Fees Affixed: Rs. 103.95/-

Chandigarh

Dated: 13th February, 2013 ARJUN SHEORAN, ADVOCATE

Petitioner in Person

C.W.P. No. 3265 of 2013

ARJUN SHEORAN

A

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

DATE EVENT

21.06.2005 Right to Information Act, 2005 was published in the Gazette of India

14.08.2007 High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 and

the Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Punjab

Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Chandigarh Union

Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 were brought

into being by publication in the Gazette.

13.02.2013 Filing of the present petition.

Chandigarh

Dated: 13th February, 2013

ARJUN SHEORAN, Advocate

(Petitioner in Person)

1


PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

MEMO OF PARTIES

ARJUN SHEORAN, ADVOCATE, PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, SON OF

SANJEEV BHARTI, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 1, SECTOR-16/A,

CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH UNION TERRITORY.

… PETITIONER

Versus

1. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,

CHANDIGARH

2. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS

SECRETARY, 2ND FLOOR, AUGUST KRANTI BHAVAN, BHIKAJI CAMA

PLACE, NEW DELHI-110066

… Respondents

Chandigarh

13th February, 2013 ARJUN SHEORAN, Advocate

(Petitioner in Person)

Civil Writ Petition No. 3265 of 2013

2

A WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER ARTICLE

226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR QUASHING

RULES 3, 4, 6, 7 INTER ALIA OF THE HIGH COURT OF

PUNJAB AND HARYANA (RIGHT TO INFORMATION) RULES,

2007, HARYANA SUBORDINATE COURTS (RIGHT TO

INFORMATION) RULES, 2007, PUNJAB SUBORDINATE

COURTS (RIGHT TO INFORMATION) RULES, 2007,

CHANDIGARH UNION TERRITORY SUBORDINATE COURTS

(RIGHT TO INFORMATION) RULES, 2007, FRAMED UNDER

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 WHICH ARE NOT

IN CONSONANCE WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE

SAID ACT, AND VIOLATE ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. That the Petitioner is a practicing advocate registered with the Bar Council of

Punjab and Haryana. The petitioner herein has been working and using the

Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for several

years, since he was a student at National Law School of India University,

Bangalore, for improving transparency and accountability and has been a

volunteer associated with Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan and the National

Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information, both of which have been at the

forefront of bringing about the Act and a movement for transparency and

accountability in India.

3

2. That the Petitioner came across the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

(Right to Information) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) and

the Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Punjab

Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Chandigarh Union

Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, during his

course of work which required him to file RTI Applications under the Act with

the Respondent No. 1 and Subordinate Courts. These Rules are formulated

by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub- section (1) of Section 28 read with Section 2 (e)(iii) of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as its

administrative function.

A copy of the Rules are hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P-1.

3. That Section 28 of the Act delegates the specific function of rule making to

the ‘Competent Authority’ as defined under Section 2 (e) (iii) of the Act. The

rule making for a Hon’ble High Court, is done by the “Competent Authority”.

Drawing from Section 28 of the Act, the Competent Authority has the power,

inter alia, to prescribe such reasonable timing for filing application, procedure

for the same, the fees payable, the cost attributable to the medium or print

cost of the material to be disseminated which is in spirit and as per the

objective of its parent Act. Section 28 of the Act reads as under:

28 . Power to Make Rules by Competent Authority

(1) The competent authority may, by notification in the Official

Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.

4

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the

foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following

matters, namely:—

(i) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the

materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4;

(ii) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6;

(iii) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 7;

and

(iv) any other matter which is required to be, =or may be,

prescribed.

The following Rules have thus been made, in exercise of such power as the

Competent Authority for the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and for the

subordinate courts of Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh:

• High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007

• Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007

(Annexed as ANNEXURE P/2)

• Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007

(Annexed as ANNEXURE P/3)

• Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information)

Rules, 2007 (Annexed as ANNEXURE P/4)

The rules for the subordinate judiciary of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh

have been identically framed and are ultra vires of the parent Act as well for the

5

same reasons. However for the sake of brevity, the High Court Rules, 2007

whose provisions are being analyzed to show how they are ultra vires.

4. That Rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 of The Rules, along with similarly framed rules for

the subordinate judiciary are being challenged as being ultra vires the parent

Act and for being unconstitutional.

5. IN RE: RULE 6

That Rule 6 (i) is in clear violation of the mandate of Section 6 (3) of the Act.

Keeping in mind the objective of the Act to reduce time taken for procuring

the information and to prevent unnecessary harassment to applicants,

Section 6 (3) of the Act lays down –

“(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for

an information,—

(i) which is held by another public authority; or

(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the

functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such

application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as

may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the

applicant immediately about such transfer”

Thus, Section 6 (3) the Act casts a duty on the public authority to transfer

such application to the appropriate authority and inform the applicant about

such transfer. However, Rule 6 (i) is in clear contradiction of the above

mentioned Section 6 of the Act. This is because Rule 6 (i) not only mandates

that if the requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of the

6

authorized person, the application must be returned to the applicant, but also

places the burden on the applicant to file a fresh application. The said rule

further does not reimburse the fees paid thereby adding unnecessary financial

burden on the applicant. Rule 6 (i) reads as under:

6. Disposal of application by the authorized person:

(i) If the requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of the

authorized person, he shall order return of the application to the

applicant in Form ‘C’ as expeditiously as possible in any case within 30

days from the date of receipt of the application, advising the applicant,

wherever possible, about the authority concerned to whom the

application should be made. The application fee deposited in such

cases shall not be refunded.

Thus, as Rule 6(i) clearly disregards the mandate of the Section 6(3) of the

Act, it is ultra vires the Act and thus liable to struck down.

6. IN RE: RULE 3

That the Rule 3 violates Section 6 of the Act in the sense that whilst Rule 3

prescribes a specific format, “Form A” to request any information under the

Act, Section 6 liberally allows the information requested to through electronic

means or even orally. Such restrictions of form of application proves to an

inconvenience to people at large including the number of population who

might not be in a position to prescribe to such format due to lack of literacy.

7. That Rule 3 of the Rules provides the timing for filing the request for

application under Section 6 of the Act. The said rule allocates mere two hours

7

a day from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m whilst usually the timing for filing the

request for application under the Act across various public authorities is set

out to be throughout the working hours of such public authority. Such a

narrow window set out by Rule 3 is severely restrictive, inconvenient and

against the spirit of the Act. Under Section 5 of the Act, a duty is cast upon

the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as

the case may be, to deal with requests from persons seeking information and

render reasonable assistance. In the present limited number of hours, it can

be reasonably assumed that such Officer being pressed for time will not be

able to provide quality services and assistance to the public seeking such

information under the Act, as required, and thereby being unable to discharge

his statutory duty under Section 5 (3) of the Act. Rule 3 of the Rules reads as

under –

3. Application for seeking information:

Any person seeking information under the Act shall make an

application in Form ‘A’ to the authorized person, in between 11.00 A.M.

to 1.00 P.M., on a Court working day and shall deposit application fee

as per Rule 7 by paying fee by way of adhesive court fee stamps or

demand drafts/ banker’s cheque/ Indian postal orders in favour of

Registrar , Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh or in any other

form so determined by the competent authority from time to time

Thus, as it is the duty of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public

Information Officer, as the case may be, to deal with requests from persons

seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking

8

such information as per Section 5 (3) of the Act. Therefore, any arbitrary limit

on the number of hours for receiving such applications goes against the duties

prescribed to the Public Information Officers. The rule which prescribes

merely 2 hours out of about 7-8 total working hours for which the offices of the

Respondent No. 1 is otherwise functioning is unreasonable, arbitrary and

against the letter and spirit of the Act. This rule unnecessarily restricts and

limits the substantive rights of the citizens under the Act by providing arbitrary

and unjustified procedures.

8. IN RE: RULE 7

That Rule 7 exemplifies how the present rules fail to carry out the purposes

of the said Act, as also the extent to which they are in conflict with the

parent Act as Rule 7 goes against the letter and spirit of the parent Act per se

and therefore is ultra vires the parent Act. Rule 7 reads as under:

“7. Charging of Fee:

(i) The application fee: A minimum of Rupees fifty shall be

charged as application fee.

(i-A) The authorized person shall charge the fee for supply of

information at the following rates:

Sr.No

.

Description of

information

Price/fees in rupees

9

(A) Where the

information is

available in the

form of a priced

publication

On printed price.

(B) For other than

priced publication

Rupees ten per page and rupees

twenty in case the information is

required under section 7 of the

Act with minimum of Rs. Fifty per

application.

(C) Where information

is available in

electronic form

and is to be

supplied in

electronics form

e.g. Floppy, CD

etc.

Rupees one hundred per floppy

and Rupees two hundred per CD.

(D) Information

relating to tenders

documents/bids/q

uotation/Business

contract

Rupees Five hundred per

application.

10

(ii)The fee for inspection of documents or record shall be Rs.

10/- per fifteen minutes or a fraction thereof and Rs. 20 per 15

minutes in case the information is required under section 7 of

the Act, for the inspection of record/document.

(iii)The fees given above may be varied/enhanced by the

competent authority from time to time.

(iv) Every page of information to be supplied shall be duly

authenticated and shall bear the seal of the officer concerned

supplying the information.

(v) During inspection the applicant shall not be allowed to take

the photograph of the record/document. The applicant shall not

cause any hindrance to the Office work and shall cooperate

with the staff and complete the inspection as soon as possible.

The Public Information Officer concerned shall have the right to

fix the time and date of the inspection according to

administrative convenience and his/her decision shall be final.

(vi) A fee of Rupees One hundred per appeal on form ‘F’ shall

be paid by way of adhesive court fee stamps or demand drafts/

banker’s cheque/ Indian postal orders in favour of Registrar ,

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh or in any other

form so determined by the competent authority from time to

time.”

9. That Rule 7 (i-A)(B) prescribes that for other than priced publication a fees of

11

“Rupees ten per page and rupees twenty in case the information is required

under section 7 of the Act with minimum of Rs. Fifty per application.” This

Rule is again vague, unclear, arbitrary and illegal because of three reasons:

a. First, that Rule 7 (i-A)(B) provides for Rupees Ten/Twenty per page

as the cost of information, which is five/ten times the fees prescribed

by The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005,

(Annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-5) i.e. Rs. Two per A4 size page,

which are followed by Central Government Public Authorities, and

even followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It states: “(a) rupees

two for each page (in A-4 or A-3 size paper) created or copied; (b)

actual charge or cost price of a copy in larger size paper; (c) actual

cost or price for samples or models; and (d) for inspection of records,

no fee for the first hour and a fee of Rs 5 for each 15 minutes (or

fraction thereof) thereafter.”

Thus, the fee prescribed under Rule 7 (i-A)(B) is unreasonable and

against the mandate of the proviso of Section 7(5) of the Act which

states that “Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of

section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable

and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below

poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.” It

is pertinent to mention herein that as per Section 7 (3)(a) of the Act,

the fees prescribed for the information represents the cost of providing

the information. It is quite unusual that the cost of providing such

information differs so vastly between similarly placed public

12

authorities, as all Central Governmental Public Authorities and even

the Hon’ble Supreme Court is able to provide information at Rupees

Two per page.

It is seems that there has been no application of mind by Hon’ble

Punjab and Haryana High Court in determining the same. That it is

pertinent to mention that action has been taken by The Ministry of

Personnel, PG & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training,

Government of India who have issued a notification No. F.1/5/2011-

IR dated April 26, 2011, with a view to reduce the variance in fees

prescribed by different appropriate Governments/Competent

Authorities. It was stated in the said letter:

“N0.F. 1/5/2011 -IR

Government of lndia

Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension

Department of Personnel & Training

******

North Block, New Delhi

Dated April 26,201 1

1. The Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs (except J&K)

2. The Registrars of all High Courts

3. The Registrar of the Supreme Court

Subject:- Harmonization of fee payable under the Right to lnformation

Act. 2005

Sir.

13

Sections 27 and 28 of the Right to lnformation Act, 2005

empower the appropriate Governments and the Competent

Authorities to make rules to prescribe, inter-alia, the fees payable

under the Act. In exercise of the powers. the Central Government,

State Governments, High Courts etc. have notified rules. It has been

observed that the fee prescribed by different appropriate

Governments/Competent Authorities is at great variance.

2. The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission has, in this regard

recommended that the States should frame Rules regarding

application fee in harmony with the Central Rules and ensure that the

fee should not become a disincentive for using the right to information.

3. All the States/Competent Authorities are, therefore, requested

to kindly review their Fee Rules and to prescribe fee in consonance

with the fee prescribed by the Government of lndia. A copy of the

Right to lnformation (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005

notified by the Government of lndia is enclosed for ready reference.

4. Kindly inform us of the action taken in this regard.

Sd/-”

Hereto annexed is a copy of the said notification as ANNEXURE P-6

That in view of the aforementioned notification all the States/

Competent Authorities have been urged to review the rules regarding

amount of fees charged for information under the Act. That the

14

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also kept its fees structure for

information under the Act as per the amount of fees prescribed by the

Government of India.

b. Secondly, Rule 7(i-A)(B) provides for two rates for providing

information i.e. “Rupees ten per page and rupees twenty in case the

information is required under section 7 of the Act with minimum of Rs.

Fifty per application” whereas there is no such power with the

Competent Authority under the Act to charge differential rates for

different kinds of requests for the same kind of information, if there

does exist any such difference. In fact, the information which is to be

provided within 30 days and the information which is to be provided

within 48 hours is no different from each other in terms of form or

content and the only difference is that the latter concerns the life and

liberty of an individual and thus needs to be provided within a shorter

time limit. Thus, there are no reasons for making such differential rates

because the form and content of the information in both the

abovementioned cases will be the same, and it is only that the term

‘expeditiously’ in Section 7(1) of the Act is limited to 48 hours as per

the proviso to section 7(1) in matters concerning life and liberty of an

individual and nothing else, and thus no enhanced fee can be charged

for the expeditious provision of information, which in any case the

Public Information Officer is bound to provide expeditiously. It is

pertinent to note that the Rule 7 must not treat the fee for the

information concerning life and liberty of a person as an urgent or

tatkal fee as the time limit of 48 hours is only for cases concerning the

15

life and liberty of any individual and it is not an additional service

provided by the Public Information Officer (hereinafter the PIO), as in

any case the PIO is bound to provide the information expeditiously. In

any case, the fee provided under Rule 7 does not follow the mandate

of the Act as it is neither reasonable nor does it represent merely the

cost of providing the information, as provided under the proviso to

Section 7 (5) of the Act.

c. Thirdly, Rule 7(i-A)(B) mandates that a minimum fee of Rupees Fifty

per application shall be charged while supplying information. This

mandatory fee is arbitrary as it is not commensurate to the number of

pages of information provided to the applicant, as the applicant might

have required only a page or so of information. Thus, the mandatory

Rupees Fifty in several cases would be way more than cost of

providing the information, which would make the said fee

unreasonable and thus against proviso of Section 7(5) of the Act.

Thus, the fee for providing information is amongst the highest in the country

as not only the Rules provide that not only the rate per page of information is

five/ten times the rate prescribed for otherwise similarly placed Central

Government Public Authorities, and even the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India, which follows the The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and

Cost) Rules, 2005, but also, arbitrarily, differential rates of information are

provided for information which is concerning the life and liberty of a person

which is to be provided within 48 hours and information that is to be provided

within thirty days. Furthermore, a minimum of Rupees Fifty are to be

16

compulsorily paid under Rule 7(i-A)(B) which is arbitrary. By asking for

arbitrarily enhanced fees for information, the Rule exploits the vulnerable

position of the applicants and imposes an illegal and arbitrary financial

burden which may act as a deterrent to file an application.

10. That thus, Rule 7 of the Rules is against Section 7 (5) of the Act. The Section

7 (5) proviso states that the fee prescribed by such Rules shall be

reasonable. Furthermore, Section 7(3) of the Act lays down that where

additional payment of fees may be required for providing information, in such

cases, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information

Officer, as the case may be, shall send intimation to the applicant explaining

details of fees chargeable for additional information. This clarifies that the

fees prescribed should not only be reasonable under proviso to Section 7 (5)

of the Act but should also signify/represent the reason/ details of the cost for

providing the information. The Petitioner hence states that the prohibitive cost

under Rule 7 for providing information is against the parent statute.

11. That Rule 7 (i-A)(D) prescribes for “Information relating to tenders documents

/bids /quotation /Business contract” an exorbitant sum of Rupees five

Hundred per application to be charged compulsorily. This rule is not only

arbitrary and prone to misuse, but also puts illegal and unauthorized fetters to

Indian citizens’ Right to Information under the Act. This unreasonable amount

is financial encumbrance to the citizens at large. The nature of the

information under Rule 7(i-A)(D) is no different from any other record/

document requested in an application under the Act and hence there is no

17

nexus between the amount charged and the reason for charging such a sum.

12. That one of the main aims of the Act is to promote transparency and

accountability in the working of every public authority. This is enshrined in the

Preamble of the Act which states:

“An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to

information for citizens to secure access to information under the control

of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability

in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central

Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for

matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

13. That access to information relating to financial transactions, as illustrated

under Rule 7(i-A)(D), entered into by a public authority are prime instruments

of ensuring transparency and accountability and any arbitrary, unreasonable

and illegal fetters on the same must be prohibited.

14. That it is pertinent to consider the purpose of the Act, as stated under the

Preamble of the Act, and the same should be used to as a guideline while

interpreting the Act:

“Whereas the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;

And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency

of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain

corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities

accountable to the governed…”

18

15. That, thus, one of the main reasons for enacting the Act was to ensure

transparency and contain corruption. Therefore, if excessively high fees are

imposed for accessing documents relating to details and background of the

financial expenditure made by Respondent No. 1, a common person cannot

challenge the illegality and arbitrariness of an expenditure which cannot be

discerned without complete information relating to tenders documents/ bids/

quotation/ Business contract.

16. That with regards to Rule 7, the payment of fee of a sum of Rs. 500 is applied

blindly notwithstanding that cost of copies of such number of pages of

information might not add up to Rs. 500. The abovesaid Rule does not take

into account the possibility that an applicant may only require such

information and not copies thereof. Furthermore, a compulsory fee of rupees

five hundred thwarts and discourages applications for information, regarding

financial decisions and spending of Respondent No. 1. This goes against the

statutory obligation under the parent Act of charging a reasonable fee, which

essentially mandates that the cost is to recover only the cost of providing the

information.

17. That a prohibitive fee of rupees five hundred as laid down in Rule 7 has no

reasonable nexus with the material which would be provided in lieu of such

application for information. This arbitrary fee and the said Rule are clearly

prone to misuse. It is illegal and puts unauthorized fetters to the Indian

citizens’ right to information under the Act.

19

18. That Rule 7 (i) stipulates an application fee of Rs. 50 per application, which

keeping in mind the objective of the Act, ought to be in order to cover the cost

of providing the information. The idea of charging the fee, clearly established,

is to reimburse the authority providing the information for the expenses it

incurs to make available such information. Hence a link must exist between

fees charged and information provided. However, Rule 7 (i-A) places extra

burden on the applicant by charging Rs. 10 per page and Rs. 20 per page in

case the information is required under Section 7 of the Act. This

discriminatory and arbitrary charging of fees without any application of mind

on the part of authority is violative of the Preamble of the Act and against its

spirit as well.

19. That similarly, Rule 7(ii) provides for an excessive and unreasonable amount

as fees for inspection of the record, as Rs. 10 or 20, as the case may be, for

every 15 minutes. On the other hand, the Central Rules, as per Rule 4 (d)

provide that “(d) for inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and a fee

of rupees five for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof).” Considering

that a citizen is not even allowed to photograph or photocopy the record as

per Rule 7 (v), there seems to be no reason why a fees 8 to 16 times higher

has been provided for inspection of the record, but for creating unnecessary

and illegal hurdles in accessing information. Thus, Rule 7(ii) ultravires the

Act.

20. That Rule 7 goes against the mandate of the Act as it is neither reasonable

nor does set out any connection between the information provided and the

20

cost for providing such information. That furthermore, Rule 7 of the Rules is

against Section 7 (5) of the Act. The proviso to Section 7 (5) states that the

fee prescribed by such Rules shall be reasonable. Furthermore, Section 7(3)

of the Act lays down that where additional payment of fees may be required

for providing information, in such cases, the Central Public Information Officer

or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall send intimation

to the applicant explaining details of fees chargeable for additional

information. This clarifies that the fees prescribed should not only be

reasonable under proviso to Section 7 (5) of the Act but should also

signify/represent the reason/ details of the cost for providing the information.

Hence, the prohibitive cost under Rule 7 for providing information is against

the parent statute.

21. That all the Central Government Public Authorities charge a reasonable fee

of Rupees two per page (A4 or A3 in size paper) of information created or

photocopied in consonance with the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee

and Cost) Rules, 2005. In comparison to such Central Authorities, the fees

prescribed by the Rules are exorbitant and stand to be one of the highest in

the country. It appears that such exorbitant fees are charged to deprive

financially weak applicants from seeking required information. It also appears

that steep fees are prescribed to discourage the public at large to seek

information from authorities and slow down the effective implementation of

the Act and goals set out therein.

22. That such variance in fees between various authorities has been recognized

21

as a threat to the Act. The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission’s

recommended that:-

“the States should frame Rules regarding application fee in harmony

with the Central Rules and ensure that the fee should not become a

disincentive for using the right to information.”

23. That the power delegated to the Competent Authority to frame rules regarding

the fees structure for information under the right to information application are

subject to Section 28 of the Act. Section 28 (2) (i) of the Act states that the

Rules framed may provide for “the cost of the medium or print cost price of

the materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4”. The

use of the word “cost” instead of fee/ amount or price is evidence of the

legislature’s intention for the fees to be a form of reimbursement of

expenses incurred by the concerned authority whilst providing

information and not to let such fees be form of a revenue generating

exercise.

24. That the Competent Authority under Section 28 of the Act while framing rules

regarding fees is bound to consider the reasonability of such amount of fees.

Unreasonable fees, is one of the biggest reasons for the ineffective

implementation of the Act and for the applicants preferring a first appeal.

Such unreasonable fees have been recognized as attempts to subvert the

intention and objective of the Act.

25. That the provision of fees of Rupees Hundred for the purpose of filing a first

22

appeal to the Appellate Authority created as per Section 19 (1) of the Act by

the Hon’ble High Court also has no basis in law and is arbitrary and ultra

vires the Act. Rule 7(6) of the Rules reads as under:

(vi) A fee of Rupees One hundred per appeal on form ‘F’ shall be paid by

way of adhesive court fee stamps or demand drafts/ banker’s cheque/ Indian

postal orders in favour of Registrar , Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh or in any other form so determined by the competent authority

from time to time.

It is pertinent to mention that the Act per se does not provide for any Court

Fees of any kind for filing a first appeal to the Appellant Authority, and neither

does it provide for any fees for filing a second appeal before the Central/State

Information Commission. This fee for filing a first appeal is an unnecessary

burden on the applicant, who would be already aggrieved with the

inaction/wrongful action of the Public Information Officer. It is pertinent to

mention herein that the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure)

Rules, 2005 applicable to all second appeals to the Central Information

Commission do not provide for any fee for filing an appeal. A copy of the

same are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-7. Similarly, the Right to

Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost Rules) 2005 do not provide for any

fees for filing a first appeal.

Furthermore, the first appeal is provided as a matter of right to the applicant

and in fact, Section 19 (5) of the parent Act provides that the “In any appeal

proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall

be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information

Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.” Therefore, not only

23

there is an unfettered right to file an appeal, but also the onus is on the Public

Information Officer. However, the provision of Court fees for filing an appeal

in the Rules is an unnecessary and illegal burden placed in the exercise of a

citizen’s statutory and constitutional rights.

26. IN RE: RULE 4

That Rule 4 is vaguely worded, arbitrary and in principle can and has been

misused. It goes against the mandate of the parent Act and therefore is

illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Rule 4 reads as under:

4. Exemption from disclosure of information:

1. The Information which relates to judicial functions and duties of the

Court and matter incidental and ancillary thereto shall not be disclosed in

terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act.

Provided that the question as to which information relates to judicial

functions, duties of Court and matters incidental and ancillary or of

confidentiality shall be decided by the Competent Authority or his

delegate, whose decision shall be final.

2. Any information affecting the confidentiality of any

examination/selection process conducted by the Punjab and Haryana

High Court for any or all categories of posts including that for

Punjab/Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and Punjab/Haryana

Superior Judicial Services.

24

Provided that the marks obtained by the candidates in each subject shall

be displayed on the website of the Court after the conclusion of the

selection process or at any early date, if decided to be disclosed not

affecting the confidentially and transparency of selection process.”

27. That while Section 8 (b) of the Act states:

8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-

Section 8 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall

be no obligation to give any citizen,-

…………………….;

(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by

any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute

contempt of court;”

Thus Section 8(b) exempts information which is specifically forbidden by the

Court, the generality of exemptions under Rule 4 cannot be interpreted to be

“expressly forbidden by Courts.” Thus, very narrow category of cases are

provided wherein the disclosure can be exempted, and same has to be done

vide an express order. Also, an administrative/quasi-judicial application of

mind would have to made regarding whether to apply Section 8 (b) of the Act,

regarding each request of information. This necessitates that the nature of

the information required by the applicant should be decided on a case by

case basis. Thus, the Rules cannot provide for a blanket ban on all

information relating to judicial functions and duties of the Court and matter

incidental and ancillary as the same would be arbitrary and against the idea

of transparency.

25

28. That the Act is premised on disclosure being the norm and refusal being the

exception. It is legally established that the information requested for under

the Act may be exempted from disclosure in accordance with the Act only.

Such exemptions are exhaustive and not illustrative. Hence, no other

exemptions can be cited to reject an application.

29. That despite the decision in the matter of Shri Keshav Kaushik v. High

Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, Appeal

No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01415 dated 29.8.2008, the Central Information

Commission, the CIC had not only granted the information to the Petitioner

the said case, which was being denied to him on ground of Rule 4, but also

the Commission, exercising its power under Section 19(8) of the Act,

recommended that a review of Rule 5 (since deleted) and Rule 4 be

undertaken. The Commission stated “It is also recommended to the High

Court of Punjab & Haryana u/s 19(8) (a) that they may consider a similar

review as that undertaken by the High Court of Delhi of its rule 5, of rule 4 of

the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007”

A copy of the said order of the Central Information Commission is hereinafter

annexed as ANNEXURE P-8.

Section 19(8) of the Act reads as follows:

(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State

Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to-

(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be

necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act,

including-

(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular

26

form;

(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public

Information Officer, as the case may be;

(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;

(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the

maintenance, management and destruction of records;

(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for

its officials;

(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b)

of sub- section (1) of section 4;

(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any

loss or other detriment suffered;

(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;

(d) reject the application.

However, despite the statutorily provided mandatory recommendation from

Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 1 has failed to act, and still retains Rule

4, despite the fact that it is ultra vires the parent Act.

30. Furthermore, the practical problems by ordinary citizens can be brought forth

by decisions of the Central Information Commission, as a consequence of

Rule 4, which is prone to misuse. The decisions show that the concerned

authorities of Respondent No. 1 have denied the information to the several

applicants, not under Section 8 of the Act but under the Rule 4. Such acts of

the concerned authorities of the Respondent No. 1 are arbitrary and the

against the mandate of the parent Act.

31. For example in the matter of Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. High Court of Punjab

27

and Haryana [CIC/WB/A/2010/000070SM], it was held as under by the

Central Information Commission:

“3. The Appellant had wanted a number of Information relating to

the Haryana Superior Judicial Services, such as, total number of available

posts, yearwise, number of vacancies filled by promotion and those filled

by direct appointment, number ofpersons stillworkingonadhoc basis, reaso

ns for reducing the number of general category vacancies etc. The APIO

refused to disclose the information by citing the rules 4(a) and 5 of the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules 2007.

When the Appellant, not satisfied with the rejection of his request by the

APIO, approached the first Appellate Authority, that authority allowed the

appeal partly and directed the PIO to provide the information as desired at

Sr. Nos xii, xiii and xxii following which the said information was also

disclosed. The Appellate Authority, however, endorsed the decision of the

APIO in respect of the remaining requests.

4.During the hearing, the Respondent reiterated the arguments offered by

both the APIO and the Appellate Authority in declining most of the informa

tion. He argued that he was bound by the rules framed by the High Court

of Punjab and Haryana in this regard. When pointed out that information

could be denied only if expressly exempted under the Right to Information

(RTI) Act and not by any other rules whosoever might have framed those,

the Respondent submitted that he was bound by the rules framed by his

28

own High Court and could not comment on whether those rules were in

conformity with the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act or not.

5.We find the stand taken by the APIO and the Appellate Authority earlier

as well as by the Respondent during the hearing to be totally out of sync

with the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Neither the APIO

nor the Appellate Authority has anywhere cited any of the exemption

provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in support of his decision

for not disclosing much of the information sought by the Appellant. They

have merely referred to the rules made by the High Court in exercise of its

powers under Section 28 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Section 28

confers powers on the competent authority, such as, the High Court, to m

ake rules to carry out the provisions of this Act. Obviously, no competent

authority can make rules to obstruct the disclosure of information by

adding additional exemption provisions

not contained in the original Act. The kind of information the Appellant has

sought in the present case is entirely administrative in nature. If the High

Court holds this information in its possession, it must disclose it. All that is

required to be disclosed in this case is a series of information which

should be contained in various files and records of the High Court, provide

d it holds those records presently. It is important to note that neither the

APIO nor the Appellate Authority has mentioned anywhere in his

respective order that the

desired information, meaning thereby the relevant records, is not being

held by the High Court.

29

6.In the light of the above, we are of the clear and categorical view that

the desired information should be disclosed in terms of the provisions of

the Right to Information (RTI) Act…..”

32. That similarly in Mehar Singh v. CPIO, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

[CIC/WB/C/201 0/000581 SM], the Central Information Commission held that:

“3. The Complainant had approached the CPIO seeking some

information regarding the action taken on a representation he had made

to the then Chief Justice of the High Court. The CPIO had informed him

that the desired information could not be disclosed in terms of Rule 4(a)

and 5 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana(Right to Information)

Rules 2007 without explaining how these rules came in the way of

disclosure of the desired information.

4. We carefully considered the submissions of both the parties. We also

carefully perused the response of the CPIO. We find his response

completely unsatisfactory. He has not passed a speaking order

while denying the information. He has not even made it clear how the

Rules cited by him are relevant to his decision. In any case, any

information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be denied

only if exempted under that Act. Rules framed by any competent

authority for carrying out the provisions of that Act cannot replace or

substitute the provisions of the said Act. We hope the CPIO will keep this

in mind in future and while denying any information would pass a

speaking order citing the appropriate exemption provisions from the Right

to Information (RTI) Act and not from the Rules made by the High Court.

5. In the present case, the desired information is about the action taken

30

on some representation made by the Complainant. There is no reason

why this information should not be disclosed as it is not covered under

any of the exemption provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Complainant within 10

working days of receiving this order the desired information including the

photocopy of any relevant record/file noting which may be available….”

33. That the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens of India.

This has been recognized by the Supreme Court in several decisions and

subsequently such right was codified by the Parliament in 2005. The Act

was enacted with the spirit of ensuring transparency and access to

information giving citizens the right to avail information. It lays down the

substantive right to information of the citizens and the practical mechanism

to enforce the said right. The scheme of the RTI Act stipulates inter alia

supply of the desired information within the period prescribed, institution of a

proper appellate mechanism and imposition of stringent penalties where

the PIO fails to provide the information within the mandated period without

reasonable cause.

34. That the object of Section 27 and 28 of the Act is to simplify the

operationalization of Act for both citizens and the public authorities; The

citizens may seek to enforce their fundamental right to information by

simply applying to the concerned authority under the provisions of the Act.

31

Section 28 envisages the competent authority to make provisions for

carrying out the purposes of the Act and not for denying information, the

denial of which is not permitted by the Act.

35. That the preamble to the Right to Information Act, 2005 reads:

“…democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of

information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain

corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities

accountable to the governed”.

36. That various Hon’ble Courts have declared in a plethora of cases that the

most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well informed

democracy is transparency. In the matter of State of UP v. Raj Narain,

AIR 1975 SC 865, a constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

held that:

“[I]n a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the

public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few

secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public

act, everything that is done in a public way, by their functionaries…”

(Para 74)

37. That in the case of S.P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors, AIR 1982

SC 149, the seven Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

made the following observations regarding the right to information:

“There is also in every democracy a certain amount of public suspicion

32

and distrust of government varying of course from time to time

according to its performance, which prompts people to insist upon

maximum exposure of its functioning… Now, if secrecy were to be

observed in the functioning of government and the processes of

government were to be kept hidden from public scrutiny, it would tend

to promote and encourage oppression, corruption and misuse or abuse

of authority, for it would all be shrouded in the veil of secrecy without any

public accountability. But if there is an open government with

means, of information available to the public there would be greater

exposure of the functioning of government and it would help to assure

the people a better and more efficient administration.” (Para 65)

38. That in the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic

Reforms AIR 2002 SC 2112, while declaring that right to information is part

of the fundamental right of citizens, under Article 19(1)(a), a 3 judge bench

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, held unequivocally that:

“The right to get information in a democracy is recognised all throughout

and is a natural right flowing from the concept of democracy.” (Para 56)

39. That the said Rules have been framed without keeping in mind the

objectives of the Act and without application of mind.

40. That the following table illustrates the Rules which are ultra vires of the

parent Act.

33

SR. NO. IMPUGNED RULE UNDER THE HIGH

COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

(RIGHT TO INFORMATION) RULES,

2007 AND SIMILAR RULES FOR THE

SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005, SECTIONS

THEREUNDER – (CENTRAL ACT)

1 Rule 3 Section 5 and 6

2 Rule 4 Section 8 (b)

3 Rule 7 Section 7 and 28

4 Rule 6 Section 6

41. That the Rules negate the citizen’s right to information under the Act and

frustrate the implementation of the latter. The Act is a reflection of the will

of the citizens of India that has been codified by the Parliament, and

accepting Rules repugnant to the provisions and object of the Act would

render the Act redundant.

42. That it is humbly submitted the Hon’ble Courts being alter of justice and

protector of the people and their rights, should lead the way as role models

in implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act, in its true letter and spirit

and inspire all public authorities to follow their lead in transparency. This

would certainly enhance the faith of an ordinary man in the judiciary and also

enable better delivery of the citizen’s fundamental right to information.

GROUNDS

34

43. That in view of the facts and circumstances enumerated above, the

impugned rules are liable to be quashed on the following grounds:

i. That Rule 3, 4, 7 and 6 inter alia of the Rules contain

provisions that are ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 2005,

which i n t e r a l i a provides a legal mechanism to enforce and

implement the citizen’s right to information guaranteed under Article

19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

ii. That Rule 3, 4, 7 and 6 inter alia of the Rules are arbitrary,

illegal and unconstitutional, and are against the mandate of the letter

and spirit of the Right to Information Act. They create unnecessary

impediments and fetters to the proper exercise of the Indian citizen’s

right to information.

iii. That Rule 7 made in pursuance of Section 28, RTI Act,

2005, prescribe an exorbitant cost of Rs 500 for all information

relating to tender documents/bids/quotation/business contract and

furthermore impose an inflated cost of Rs. 10 and 20 per page of

information to be supplied, thus creating different rates for supplying

the same information thus impeding the access to information for the

vast majority of the population that is not economically advanced.

35

iv. That the impugned fee structure under the Rules are

discordant with the fee with the actual cost of providing the

information;

v. That Rule 6 is clearly violative of Section 6 of the Act as it

restricts the rights provided by the parent Act to a common citizen and

imposes undue and arbitrary fetters on exercise of Right to

Information.

vi. That Rule 4 goes beyond the list of exemptions provided

by the Act and hence is violative of the Act. The delegated power to

the Competent Authority to prescribe Rules are subject to the parent

Act and such capacity to frame rules cannot go beyond the power

which is designated to it.

vii. That Rule 3 provides for restrictive timings and specific

format which results in severe restrictions on the Act which are against

Sections of the Act and go against the objective of the Act.

viii. That in accordance with Section 22 of the Act, the

provisions of the Act would override all the existing laws and Rules.

The citizens have a right to access information under the Act or the

Rules.

ix. The impugned Rules nullify or whittle down the precious

36

right that has been conferred by the Act. In a large number of cases,

like in Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay v Gwalior Rayon Silk

Manufacturing Company Ltd., AIR 1992 SC 1782 this Hon’ble

Court has held, “The rules are meant only to carry out the

provisions of the Act and cannot take away what is conferred by

the Act or whittle down its effect.”

44. That in the facts and circumstances of the present case as enumerated

above, the following the questions of law would arise for adjudication before

this Hon’ble Court:

i. Whether rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Haryana

Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Punjab

Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,

Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to

Information) Rules, 2007 arbitrary, unreasonable and

unconstitutional and ultra vires the parent Act and also violative

Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India?

45. That there is no alternative efficacious remedy available with the petitioner

except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of filing the present writ

petition. No appeal or revision lies in the conspectus of the present case.

46. That the petitioner has not filed any other such or similar writ petition in this

Hon’ble High Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

37

PRAYER

In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed

that this Hon’ble Court in public interest may be pleased to:

i. Issue appropriate writ quashing Rules 4 of the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 and the

Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,

Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,

Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information)

Rules, 2007, as unconstitutional and/ or ultra-vires the Right to

Information Act 2005 and/ or;

ii. Issue appropriate writ quashing Rules 6 of the High Court of





Rules, 2007 as unconstitutional and/ or ultra-vires the Right to


iii. Issue appropriate writ quashing Rules 7 of the High Court of






38


iv. Issue appropriate writ quashing Rules 7 (i-A) and 7 (i-B) of the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 and

the Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007,





v. Issue appropriate writ quashing Rule 3 of the High Court of Punjab

and Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 and the Haryana

Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Punjab

Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007, Chandigarh

Union Territory Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules,

2007 as unconstitutional and/ or ultra-vires the Right to Information

Act 2005 and/ or;

vi. Issue appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 1 and the

subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court

of Punjab and Haryana to consider the application of the Right to

Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2006 framed by the

Central Government which are also being followed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and/ or;

vii. to dispense with filling of advance copies of notice;

viii. to dispense with the filing of certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-8

39

ix. Issue or pass any writ, direction or order, which this Hon’ble court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Dated this day 13th of February 2013 Petitioner

Chandigarh ARJUN SHEORAN, Advocate

Petitioner in Person

40


CWP No. ________ of 2013

ARJUN SHEORAN

… Petitioners

Versus

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND OTHERS

… Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF ARJUN SHEORAN, SON OF SANJEEV BHARTI, HOUSE

NO. 1, SECTOR-16/A, CHANDIGARH.

I, the above named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

under:

1. That the deponent is fully conversant with the facts of the case and is therefore,

competent to swear the present affidavit.

2. That the averments made in para 1 to para 45 are true and correct to my knowledge.

No Part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.

3. That the deponent is filling the accompanying petition in public interest and has no

personal interest in the same.

Chandigarh (ARJUN SHEORAN)

DEPONENT


VERIFICATION

Verified that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to

my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed

therein.

Chandigarh


(ARJUN SHEORAN)

DEPONENT

40-A

Vol. V. 1 Ch. 7-K

PART-K

[86][In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) ofSection 28 read with Section 2(e)(iii) of the Right to InformationAct, 2005 (22 of 2005), the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryanahereby makes the following rules, namely:-

1. Short title and commencement:

(i) These rules shall be called the “High Court of Punjaband Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007”.

(ii) These rules shall come into force from the date of theirpublication in the Official Gazette.

(iii) These rules shall be applicable to the High Court ofPunjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

2. Definitions:(i) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) ‘Act’ means the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of2005);

(b) ‘Appendix’ means the appendix appended to theserules;

(c) ‘Authorized Person’ means Public Information Officerand Assistant Public Information Officer designated assuch by the Chief Justice of the High Court;

(d) ‘Appellate Authority’ means designated as such by theChief Justice of the High Court;

(e) ‘Form’ means a form appended to these rules;(f) ‘High Court’ means the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana;(g) ‘Section’ means the section of the Act;

(ii) Words and expressions used but not defined in theseRules, shall have the same meanings assigned to them inthe Act.

3. Application for seeking information:

Any person seeking information under the Act shall makean application in Form ‘A’ to the authorized person, in between11.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M., on a Court working day and shall depositapplication fee as per Rule 7 by paying fee by way of adhesivecourt fee stamps or demand drafts/ banker’s cheque/ Indianpostal orders in favour of Registrar , Punjab and Haryana HighCourt, Chandigarh or in any other form so determined by thecompetent authority from time to time:

Provided that a person, who makes a request throughelectronic form, shall ensure that the requisite fee isdeposited with the authorized person, in the mannermentioned above, within seven days of his sending therequest through electronic form, failing which, theapplication shall be treated as dismissed:

41

Vol. V. 2 Ch. 7-K

Provided further that the date of application shall be deemed to bethe date of deposit of the entire fee or the balance fee or deficitamount of the fee to the authorized person.

4. Exemption from disclosure of information:

1. The Information which relates to judicial functionsand duties of the Court and matter incidental and ancillarythereto shall not be disclosed in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of theAct.

Provided that the question as to which information relatesto judicial functions, duties of Court and matters incidental andancillary or of confidentiality shall be decided by the CompetentAuthority or his delegate, whose decision shall be final.

2. Any information affecting the confidentiality of anyexamination/selection process conducted by the Punjab andHaryana High Court for any or all categories of posts includingthat for Punjab/Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) andPunjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Services.

Provided that the marks obtained by the candidates ineach subjest shall be displayed on the website of the Court afterthe conclusion of the selection process or at any early date, ifdecided to be disclosed not affecting the confidentially andtransparency of selection process.

5. Deleted.

6. Disposal of application by the authorized person:

(i) If the requested information does not fall within thejurisdiction of the authorized person, he shall order returnof the application to the applicant in Form ‘C’ asexpeditiously as possible in any case within 30 days fromthe date of receipt of the application, advising the applicant,wherever possible, about the authority concerned to whomthe application should be made. The application feedeposited in such cases shall not be refunded.

(ii) If the requested information falls within theauthorized person’s jurisdiction and also in one or more ofthe categories of restrictions listed in Sections 8 and 9 of theAct and Rule 5 above and exemptions detailed in Rule 4above, the authorized person, on being satisfied, will issuethe rejection order in Form ‘D’ as soon as practicable,normally within fifteen days and in any case not later thanthirty days from the date of the receipt of the application.

(iii) If the requested information falls within theauthorized person’s jurisdiction, but not in one or more ofthe categories listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Rules4 and 5 above, the authorized person, on being so satisfied,shall supply the information to the applicant in Form ‘E’,falling within its jurisdiction. In case the informationsought is partly outside the jurisdiction of the authorized

42

Vol. V. 3 Ch. 7-K

person or partly falls in the categories listed in Sections 8and 9 of the Act, the authorized person shall supply onlysuch information as is permissible under the Act and iswithin its own jurisdiction and reject the remaining partgiving reasons thereof.

(iv) The information shall be supplied as soon aspracticable, normally within fifteen days and in any case notlater than thirty days from the date of the receipt of theapplication on deposit of the balance amount, if any, to theauthorized person, before collection of the information. Aproper acknowledgement shall be obtained from theapplicant in token of receipt of information

(v) Deleted.

7. Charging of Fee:

(i) The application fee: A minimum of Rupees fifty shall becharged as application fee.

(i-A) The authorized person shall charge the fee for supply ofinformation at the following rates:

Sr.No.

Description of information Price/fees in rupees

(A) Where the information isavailable in the form of apriced publication

On printed price.

(B)

(C)

(D)

For other than pricedpublication

Where information isavailable in electronic formand is to be supplied inelectronics form e.g. Floppy,CD etc.

Information relating totendersdocuments/bids/quotation/Business contract

Rupees ten per page andrupees twenty in case theinformation is requiredunder section 7 of the Actwith minimum of Rs. Fiftyper application.

Rupees one hundred perfloppy and Rupees twohundred per CD.

Rupees Five hundred perapplication.

43

Vol. V. 4 Ch. 7-K

(ii) The fee for inspection of documents or record shall beRs. 10/- per fifteen minutes or a fraction thereof andRs. 20 per 15 minutes in case the information isrequired under section 7 of the Act, for the inspectionof record/document.

(iii) The fees given above may be varied/enhanced by thecompetent authority from time to time.

(iv) Every page of information to be supplied shall be dulyauthenticated and shall bear the seal of the officerconcerned supplying the information.

(v) During inspection the applicant shall not be allowed totake the photograph of the record/document. The applicantshall not cause any hindrance to the Office work and shallcooperate with the staff and complete the inspection as soonas possible. The Public Information Officer concerned shallhave the right to fix the time and date of the inspectionaccording to administrative convenience and his/herdecision shall be final.

(vi) A fee of Rupees One hundred per appeal on form ‘F’shall be paid by way of adhesive court fee stamps ordemand drafts/ banker’s cheque/ Indian postal orders infavour of Registrar , Punjab and Haryana High Court,Chandigarh or in any other form so determined by thecompetent authority from time to time.

8. Appeal:

(i) Any person-

(a) who fails to get a response in Form C or Form D fromthe authorized person within thirty days of submission ofForm A, or

(b) is aggrieved by the response received within theprescribed period, appeal in Form ‘F’ to the AppellateAuthority and affix fee for appeal as per rule 7.

(ii) On receipt of the appeal, the Appellate Authority shallacknowledge the receipt of appeal and after giving theapplicant an opportunity of being heard, shall endeavour todispose it of within thirty days

44

Vol. V. 5 Ch. 7-K

from the date, on which it is presented and send a copy ofthe decision to the authorized person concerned.

(iii) In case the appeal is allowed, the information shall besupplied to the applicant by the authorized person withinsuch period as may be ordered by the Appellate Authority.This period shall not exceed thirty days from the date of thereceipt of the order.

9. Penalties :

(i) Whoever being bound to supply information fails tofurnish the information asked for, under the Act, within thetime specified or fails to communicate the rejection order,shall be liable to pay a penalty up to fifty rupees per day forthe delayed period beyond thirty days subject to a maximumof five hundred rupees per application, filed under rule 3 asmay be determined by the appellate authority.

(ii) Where the information supplied is found to be false inany material particular and which the person is bound tosupply it knows and has reason to believe it to be false ordoes not believe it to be true, the person supplying theinformation shall be liable to pay a penalty of one thousandrupees, to be imposed by the appellate authority.

10. Suo motu publication of Information by publicauthorities:

(i) The public authority shall suo motu publishinformation as per sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act bypublishing booklets and / or folders and / or pamphlets andupdate these publications every year as required by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.

(ii) Such information shall also be made available to thepublic through information counters, medium of internetand display on notice board at conspicuous places in theoffice of the Authorized Person and the Appellate Authority.

11. Maintenance of Records:

(i) The authorized person shall maintain records of allapplications received for supply of information and feecharged.

(ii) The appellate authority shall maintain records of allappeals filed before it and fee charged.

45

Vol. V. 6 Ch. 7-KFORM A

Form of application for seeking information(See rule 3)

I.D. No……………..(For official use)

ToThe authorized person……………………………

1. Name of the applicant2. Address3. Particulars of the information sought

(a) Concerned department: High Court(b) Period for which information is sought(c) Other details, if any

4. A Court fee of Rs…………………….has been affixed on theapplication

Place: Signature of the ApplicantDate: E-mail address, if any……..

Telephone No.(Office)……..(Residence)…………………..

Note:(i) Please ensure that the Form A is complete in all

respect and there is no ambiguity in providing the details ofinformation required.

46

Vol. V. 7 Ch. 7-K

FORM BAcknowledgement of Application in Form A

I.D. No. Dated1. Received an application in Form A from Mr./Ms. resident

of under Section……………………..of the Right to InformationAct, 2005.

2. The information is proposed to be given normally withinfifteen days and in case within thirty days from the date ofreceipt of application and in case it is found that theinformation asked for cannot be supplied, the rejection lettershall be issued stating reason thereof.

3. The applicant is advised to contact the undersignedon…………………..between 11.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M.

4. In case the applicant fails to turn up on the scheduled date(s),the undersigned shall not be responsible for delay. if any.

1.The applicant shall have to deposit the balance fee, if any,before collection of information.

2.The applicant may also consult Web-site of the departmentfrom time to time to ascertain the status of his application.

Signature & Stamp of the Authorised Person

E-mail

Web-site

Telephone No.

Dated

47

Vol. V. 8 Ch. 7-K

FORM COutside the Jurisdiction of the authorized person

[rule 6( i)]

No .................................. Dated …………….From

…………………………………………To…………………….…………………….

Sir/Madam.

Please refer to your application, I.D. No……………….…..dated………….. addressed to the undersigned regarding supplyof information on……………………

2. The requested information does not fall within thejurisdiction of the undersigned and, therefore, yourapplication is being returned herewith.

3. You are requested to apply to the concerned authorizedperson…

Yours faithfully,

Authorised Person

E-mail address

Web-site

Telephone No.

48

Vol. V. 9 Ch. 7-KFORM D

Rejection Order[rule 6(ii)]

No…………….. Dated…………….

From………………………….………………………….

To………………………….………………………….

Sir/Madam,

Please refer to your application I.D. No………………….date……………..addressed to the undersigned regardingsupply of information on…………………

2. The information asked for cannot be supplied due tofollowing reasons:-

(i)

(i)

3. As per Section 19 of the Right to Information Act,2005, you may file an appeal to the Appellate Authoritywithin thirty days of the issue of this order.

Yours faithfully,

Authorised Person

E-mail address

Web-site

Telephone No.

49

Vol. V. 10 Ch. 7-KFORM E

Form of Supply of information to the applicant[rule 6(iii)]

No………………… Dated……………….From……………………………………………..

To………………………………………………

Sir/Madam,

Please refer to your application, I. D. No…………..dated………….addressed to the undersigned regarding supplyof information on………………………

or2. The information asked for is enclosed for reference.*

The following partly information is being enclosed.*

(i)

(ii)

The remaining information about the other aspects cannotbe supplied due to the following reasons:-

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

3. The requested information does not fall within the jurisdictionof the undersigned.*

4. As per Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, youmay file an appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty daysof the issue of this order.*.

Yours faithfully,

Authorised Person

E-mail address

Web-site

Telephone No.

*Strike out if not applicable.

50

Vol. V. 11 Ch. 7-K

FORM FAppeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005

[rule 8(i)]I.D. No…………

(For official use)

To

Appellate Authority

Address :

1. Name of the Applicant

2. Address3. Particulars of the authorized person

(a) Name(b) Address

4. Date of submission of application in Form A5 Date on which 30 days from submission of Form A is over6. Reasons for appeal

(a) No response received in Form B or C within thirty days ofsubmission of Form A[8(i)(a)].

(b) Aggrieved by the response received within prescribedperiod [8(i)(b)] [copy of the reply received be attached].

(c) Grounds for appeal.

7. Last date for filing the appeal. [See Rule 8(iii)]7. Particulars of information :---(i) Information requested(ii) Subject(iii) Period

7. A court fee of Rs. 100/- for appeal has been affixed.

Place Signature of Appellant

Date E-mail address, if any:

Telephone No. (Office)

(Residence)

51

Vol. V. 12 Ch. 7-K

Acknowledgement

I.D. No………….. DatedReceived an Appeal application from Shri/Ms………………..resident of ......................……………………..under Section 19 of the Right toInformation Act, 2005.

Signature of Receipt Clerk.

Appellate Authority

Telephone No.

E-mail address, Web-site

By order of Hon ’bIe the Chief Justice and Judges.

(Sd.)..

Registrar General.]

52

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Correction Slip

No.140 Rules/II.D.4, dated 14-8-2007

The following Rules shall be added as Part G after Part F of Chapter 5 of Rules and Orders of Punjab High Court, Volume-4.

In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 28

read with Section 2(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of

2005), Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana are pleased to make the following rules,

namely :-

1. Short title and commencement :

(i) These Rules shall be called the “Haryana Subordinate

Courts, (Right to Information) Rules, 2007”.

(ii) These rules shall come into force from the date of their

publication in the Official Gazette.

(iii) These rules shall be applicable to all the Subordinate

Courts in the State of Haryana.

2. Definitions :

(i) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) 'Act' means the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005);

(b) 'Appendix' means the appendix appended to these rules;

(c) Àuthorized Person’ means Public Information Officer and

Assistant Public Information Officer designated as such by

the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.

(d) Àppellate Authority’ means designated as such by the

Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.

(e) Àdministrative Officer’ means the Chief Administrative

Officer/Superintendent of the office of District & Sessions

Judge

(f) `Chief Ministerial Officer’ means'(the Senior most official out of cadre of Readers/Judgment Writers/Stenographers as case may be) of the Court presided over by the senior

most judicial Officer at the station having more than one

Court other than the District Head quarters and the Chief

Ministerial Officer of the Court where there is only one

Court at a station.

(g) 'Competent Authority' means the Hon'ble Administrative

Judge of the concerned Sessions Division as a delegatory of the competent authority as defined in the Act.

53

(h) 'Form' means a form appended to these rules ;

(i) 'High Court' means the High Court of Punjab and Haryana;

(j) 'Section' means the section of the Act.

(ii) Words and expressions used but not defined in these Rules, shall

have the same meanings assigned to them in the Act.

3. Application for seeking information :


application in Form 'A' to the authorized person, between 11.00

A.M. to 1.00 P.M., on a Court working day and shall deposit

application fee as per Rule 7 by paying adhesive court fee, or in

any other form so determined by the competent authority from

time to time.

Provided that a person, who makes a request through

electronic form, shall ensure that the requisite fee is deposited

with the authorized person, in the manner mentioned above,

within seven days of his sending the request through electronic

form, failing which, the application shall be treated as dismissed.

Provided further that the date of application shall be

deemed to be the date of deposit of the entire fee or the balance

fee or deficit amount of the fee to the authorised person.

4. Exemption from disclosure of information.

The information specified under Section 8 of the Act shall

not be disclosed and made available and in particular the

following information shall not be disclosed:-

1. The information which relates to judicial functions and duties

of the Court and matter incidental and ancillary thereto shall not

be disclosed in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act.

Provided that the question as to which information relates to

judicial functions, duties of Court and mater incidental and

ancillary or of confidentiality shall be decided by the

Competent Authority or his delegate, whose decision shall be

final.

2. Any information affecting the confidentiality of any examination/selection process conducted by the District & Sessions Judge under Haryana Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 as amended from time to time.

The question of confidentiality shall be decided by the

Competent Authority, and in case of the information relating to a

Sessions Division by the Administrative Judge of the said

Sessions Division acting as a delegatee of the competent

54

authority, whose decision shall be final.

5. Deleted.

6. Disposal of application by the authorized person.

(i) If the requested information does not fall within the

jurisdiction of the authorized person, he shall order return of

the application to the applicant in Form `C’ as expeditiously as

possible in any case within 30 days from the date of receipt of

the application, advising the applicant, wherever possible,

about the authority concerned to whom the application should

be made. The application fee deposited in such cases shall

not be refunded.

(ii) If the requested information falls within the authorized

person’s jurisdiction and also in one or more of the categories

of restrictions listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Rule 5

above and exemptions detailed in Rule 4 above, the authorized

person, on being satisfied, will issue the rejection order in Form

`D’ as soon as practicable, normally within fifteen days and in

any case not later than thirty days from the date of the receipt

of the application.

(iii) If the requested information falls within the authorized

person’s jurisdiction, but not in one or more of the categories

listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Rules 4 and 5 above,

the authorized person, on being so satisfied, shall supply the

information to the applicant in Form `E’, falling within its

jurisdiction. In case the information sought is partly outside the

jurisdiction of the authorized person or partly falls in the

categories listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the authorized

person shall supply only such information as is permissible

under the Act and is within its own jurisdiction and reject the

remaining part giving reasons thereof.

( i v ) The in f o rma t i on sha l l b e s upp l i ed a s soon a s practicable, normally within fifteen days and in any case not later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the application on deposit of the balance amount, if any, to the authorized person, before collection of the information. A proper acknowledgment shall be obtained from the applicant in token of receipt of information.

(v) Deleted

7. Charging of Fee.

(i) The authorized person shall charge the fee for supply of

information at the following rates, :-

55

Sr. No. Description of information Price/fees in rupees

(A) Where the information is available in

the form of a priced publication.

On printed price.

(B) For other than priced publication

Rupees ten per page

and rupees twenty in

case the information

i s r equ i red unde r

section 7 of the Act

with minimum of Rs.

Fifty per application.

(C) Where information is available in

electronic form and is to be supplied

in electronics form e.g. Floppy, CD

etc.

Rupees one hundred

p e r f l o p p y a n d

Rupees two hundred

per CD.

(D) Information relating to tenders

documents/bids/quotation/business

contract.

Rupees Five

hundred per

application.

(ii) The fee for inspection of documents or record shall be Rs. 10/- per fifteen minutes or a fraction thereof and Rs. 20 per 15

minutes in case the information is required under section 7 of the

Act, for the inspection of record/document.

(iii) The fees given above may be varied/enhanced by the competent

authority from time to time.




(v) During inspection the applicant shall not be allowed to take the

photograph of the record/document. The applicant shall not

cause any hindrance to the Office work and shall cooperate with

the staff and complete the inspection as soon as possible. The

Public Information Officer concerned shall have the right to fix the

time and date of the inspection according to administrative

convenience and his/her decision shall be final.

(vi) A Court fee of Rupees One hundred per appeal shall be affixed on the application for appeal in Form F.

8. Appeal.

(i) Any person –

(a) who fails to get a response in Form C or Form D from the

authorized person within thirty days of submission of Form

A, or

56

(b) is aggrieved by the response received within the prescribed

period, appeal in Form `F’ to the Appellate Authority and

affix fee for appeal as per rule 7.

(ii) On receipt of the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall

acknowledge the receipt of appeal and after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, shall endeavour to dispose it of within thirty days from the date, on which it is presented and send a copy of the decision to the authorized person concerned.

(iii) In case the appeal is allowed, the information shall be supplied to

the applicant by the authorized person within such period as may

be ordered by the Appellate Authority. This period shall not

exceed thirty days from the date of the receipt of the order.

9. Penalties.

(i) Whoever being bound to supply information fails to furnish the

information asked for, under the Act, within the time specified or

fails to communicate the rejection order, shall be liable to pay a

penalty up to fifty rupees per day for the delayed period beyond

thirty days subject to a maximum of five hundred rupees per

application, filed under rule 3 as may be determined by the

appellate authority.

(ii) Where the information supplied is found to be false in any

material particular and which the person is bound to supply it

knows and has reason to believe it to be false or does not believe it to be true, the person supplying the information shall be liable to pay a penalty of one thousand rupees, to be imposed by the appellate authority.

10. Suo motu publication of Information by public authorities.

(i) The public authority shall suo motu publish information as per

sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act by publishing booklets and/or folders and/or pamphlets and up date these publications every year as required by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.

(ii) Such information shall also be made available to the public

through information counters, medium of internet and display on

notice board at conspicuous places in the office of the authorized

person and the appellate authority.

11. Maintenance of Records.

(i)The authorized person shall maintain records of all applications

received for supply of information and fee charged.

(iii)The appellate authority shall maintain records of all appeals

filed before it and fee charged.

57

FORM A

Form of application for seeking information

(See rule 3)

I.D. No. _________

(For official use)

To

The authorized person.

1, Name of the Applicant

2 . A d d r e s s

3 . Par t i cu la r s o f i n fo rma t ion sough t -

(a) Concerned department District Courts – Sub Divisional Courts

(b) Period for which information is sought

(c) Other details, if any

4. A Court fee of Rs ............. has been affixed on the application.

Place, Signature of Applicant

Date E-mail address, if any, :-

Telephone No. (Office)...

(Residence)...

Note:

(i) Please ensure that the Form A is complete in all respect and there is no

ambiguity in providing the details of information required.

58

FORM B

Acknowledgment of Application in Form A

I.D. No. Dated

1. Received an application in Form A from Mr./Ms resident of under

Section

_____ of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. The information is proposed to be given normally within fifteen days and

in

case within thirty days from the date of receipt of application and in case it is

found that the information asked for cannot be supplied, the rejection letter

shall be issued stating reason thereof.

3. The applicant is advised to contact the undersigned on __ between 11

A.M. to 1.00 P.M.

4. In case the applicant fails to turn up on the scheduled date(s), the

undersigned shall not be responsible for delay, if any.

5. The applicant shall have to deposit the balance fee, if any, before

collection

of information.

6. The applicant may also consult Web site of the department from time to

time

to ascertain the status of his application.

Signature & Stamp of the Authorised Person

E-mail

Web-site

Telephone No.

Dated

59

FORM C

Outside the Jurisdiction of the authorized person

[rule

6(i)] No. Dated:

From

To

Sir/Madam,

Please refer to your application, I.D. No......... d a t ed . addressed to the

undersigned regarding supply of information on __________

2. The requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of the

undersigned and, therefore, your application is being returned herewith.

3. You are requested to apply to the concerned authorized person.

Yours faithfully,

Authorised Person

E-mail address

Web-site

Telephone No.

60

FORM D

Rejection Order

[rule

6(ii)] No. Dated

From

To

Sir/Madam,

Please refer to your application, I.D. No .... dated ...... addressed to the

undersigned regarding supply of information on _________

2. The information asked for cannot be supplied due to following reasons:-

(i)

(ii)

3. As per Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, you may file an

appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of the issue of this order.

Yours faithfully,

Authorised

Person E-mail

address

Web-site

Telephone No.

61

FORM E

Form of Supply of information to the applicant

[rule 6(iii)]

No. ____________________ Dated ________

From

To

Sir/Madam,

Please refer to your application, I.D. No .... dated ..... addressed to the


or

2. The information asked for is enclosed for reference.*


(i)

(ii)

The remaining information about the other aspects cannot be supplied due to

following reasons:-*

(i)

(ii)

(iii)


undersigned.*


appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of the issue of this order.*

Yours faithfully,

Authorised

Person E-mail

address

Web-site

Telephone No.

* Strike out if not applicable.

62

FORM F

Appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005

[rule 8(i)]

I.D. No.

To (for official use)

Appellate Authority

Address:

1 . Name of the Applicant

2 . A d d r e s s

3 . Particulars of the authorized person

( a ) N a m e

( b ) A d d r e s s

4. Date of submission of application in Form A

5. Date on which 30 days from submission of Form A is over

6. Reasons for appeal

(a) No response received in Form B, or C within thirty days of submission

of Form A [8(i)(a)].

(b) Aggrieved by the response received within prescribed period

[8(i)(b)]

[copy of the reply received be attached].


7. Last date for filing the appeal. [See Rule 8(iii)]

8. Particulars of Information –

( i ) I n f o rma t i o n r e q u e s t e d

( i i ) S u b j e c t

(iii) Period.

9. A court fee of Rs.100/- for appeal has been affixed.


Date E-mail Address, if any:

Telephone No. (Office)

(Residence)

63

Acknowledgment

I.D. No. Dated

Received an Appeal application from Shri/

Ms _______________________________________________ resident of ______________ under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Signatures of Receipt Clerk,

Appellate Authority

Telephone No.

E-Mail Address Web Site

BY ORDER OF HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES

REGISTRAR GENERAL


NOTIFICATION

No. 325 Rules/II.D.4, Dated 16-8-2007

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5(1) and

(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Hon'ble the Chief Justice and

Judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court have been pleased to

designate the following officers as the Assistant Public Information

Officers, Public Information Officers and the First Appellate Authorities

for the Subordinate Courts of Haryana, as required under Section 19 of

the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Sr.

No.

Name of the Court

Assistant

Public

Information

Officers

Public

Information

Officers

Appellate Authority

1

a)Court of District and

S e s s i o n s J u d g e a n d

Courts of Additional District

and Sessions Judges at

District head quarters.

b) Courts of Additional

Distt. & Sessions Judge at

places where there is no

District & Sessions Judge

Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court of District &

Sessions

Judge

Sr.Ahalmed/ Stenogra- pher

Chief

Administrative

officer/ Supdt.

in the office of

District &

Sessions

Judge

Chief

Ministerial

Officer of the

Court of

Senior most

Additional

District &

Sessions

Judge

District and

Sessions Judge of

t h e r e sp ec t i v e

Sessions Division

Senior most

Additional District

and Sessions

Judge.

2

Court of Civil Judge,

Senior Division

Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court

Clerk of Court

of the office of

t h e C i v i l

Judge (Sr.

Divn.)

Civil Judge(Sr.

Div.)

64

3

Courts of Chief Judicial

Magistrate

Senior Most Ahalmed/ / Stenograp- her

Chief Ministerial Officer of the

Court

Chief Judicial

Magistrate

4

Courts of Civil Judges

situated at places other

than the District Head

Quarters.

Senior most

Ahalmed/Ste

no-grapher

Chief

Ministerial

Officer of the

Senior most

Judicial

Officer

Senior most

Judicial Officer.

5

Courts of Additional Civil

Judge (Sr. Division) or

Court of Sr. Most Civil

Judge at Sub Divisional

level

Senior most Ahalmed/Ste

no-grapher

Chief

Ministerial

Officer of the

Senior most

Judicial

Officer

Senior most

Judicial Officer.


REGISTRAR GENERAL

65


Correction slip

No.142 Rules/II.D.4. Dated 14-8-2007

The following Rules shall be added as Part F after Part E of Chapter 5 of Rules and Orders of Punjab High Court, Volume-4.





namely :-


(i) These Rules shall be called the “Punjab Subordinate

Courts, (Right to Information) Rules, 2007”.




Courts in the State of Punjab.

2. Definitions :




(c) `Authorized Person’ means Public Information Officer and

Assistant Public Information Officer designated as such by

the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.





Judge

(f) `Chief Ministerial Officer’ means'(the Senior most official out

of cadre of Readers/Judgment Writers/Stenographers as

case may be) of the Court presided over by the senior




Court at a station.


Judge of the concerned Sessions Division as a delegatory

of the competent authority as defined in the Act.

66












time to time.













1. The information which relates to judicial functions and

duties of the Court and matter incidental and ancillary thereto

shall not be disclosed in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act.





final.

2. Any information affecting the confidentiality of any examination/selection process conducted by the District & Sessions Judge under Punjab Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 as amended from time to time.






67

5. Deleted.









not be refunded.








of the application.



listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Rules 4 and 5 above, the authorized person, on being so satisfied, shall supply the








(iv) The information shall be supplied as soon as practicable,

normally within fifteen days and in any case not later than thirty

days from the date of the receipt of the application on deposit of

the balance amount, if any, to the authorized person, before

collection of the information. A proper acknowledgment shall be

obtained from the applicant in token of receipt of information.

(v) Deleted.

7. Charging of Fee.




68


the form of a priced publication. On printed price.


Rupees ten per page





with minimum of Rs.





etc.

Rupees one hundred


Rupees two hundred

per CD.



contract.

Rupees Five

hundred per

application.




(iii) The fees given above may be varied/enhanced by the competent authority from time to time.











(vi) A Court fee of Rupees One hundred per appeal shall be affixed

on the application for appeal in Form F.

8. Appeal.

(i) Any person –



A, or




69




the applicant by the authorized person within such period as may be ordered by the Appellate Authority. This period shall not exceed thirty days from the date of the receipt of the order.

9. Penalties.











10. Suo motu publication of Information by public authorities.

(i) The public authority shall suo motu publish information as per

sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act by publishing booklets and/or folders and/or pamphlets and up date these publications every year as required by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.








(ii)The appellate authority shall maintain records of all appeals


70

FORM A


(See rule 3)

I.D. No. _________

(For official use)

To



2 . A d d r e s s

3 . Part icula rs of informat ion sought-



(c) Other details, if any

4. A Court fee of Rs .................. has been affixed on the application.



Telephone No.

(Office)...

(Residence)...

Note:

(i) Please ensure that the Form A is complete in all respect and there is no

ambiguity in providing the details of information required.

71

FORM B

Acknowledgment of Application in Form

A I. D. No. Dated


Section



in





A.M. to 1.00 P.M.




collection

of information.


time


Signature & Stamp of the Authorised

Person E-mail

Web-site

Telephone No.

Dated

72

FORM C


[rule

6(i)] No. Dated:

From

To

Sir/Madam,



2. The requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of

the



Yours faithfully,

Authorised Person

E-mail address

Web-site

Telephone No.

73

FORM D

Rejection Order

[rule 6(ii)]

No. _____________________ Dated ________

From

To

Sir/Madam,

Please refer to your application, I.D. No .... dated ...... addressed to the



(i)

(ii)


appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of the issue of this order.

Yours faithfully,

Authorised

Person E-mail

address

Web-site

Telephone No.

74

FORM E


[rule 6(iii)]

No. ____________________ Dated ____

From

To

Sir/Madam,

Please refer to your application, I.D. No ........ dated ..... addressed to the


or



(i)

(ii)



(i)

(ii)

(iii)


undersigned.*



Yours faithfully,

Authorised

Person E-mail

address

Web-site

Telephone No.

* Strike out if not applicable. .

75

FORM F


[rule 8(i)]

I.D. No.


Appellate Authority

Address:


2 . A d d r e s s


( a ) N a m e

( b ) A d d r e s s







[8(i)(b)]







(iii) Period.




Telephone No.

(Office) (Residence)

76

Acknowledgment

I.D. No. Dated


Ms _______________________________________________ resident of ______________ under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Signatures of Receipt Clerk,

Appellate Authority

Telephone No.



REGISTRAR GENERAL


NOTIFICATION

No. 326 Rules/II.D.4, Dated 16-8-2007

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5(1) and (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court have been pleased to designate the following officers as the Assistant Public Information Officers, Public Information Officers and the First Appellate Authorities for the Subordinate Courts of Punjab, as required under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Sr. No.

Name of the Court Assistant Public

Information

Officers

Public

Information

Officers

Appellate Authority

1



Courts of Additional District and Sessions Judges at


b) Courts of Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge at places where there is no



Sessions Judge


Chief

Administrative

officer/ Supdt. in the office of

District &

Sessions

Judge

Chief

Ministerial

Officer of the

Court of

Senior most

Additional

District &

Sessions

Judge

District and

Sessions Judge of

t h e r e sp e c t i v e

Sessions Division

Senior most

Additional District

and Sessions

Judge.

2

Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division


Clerk of Court of the office of

t h e C i v i l

Judge (Sr. Divn.)

Civil Judge(Sr. Div.)

77

3


Magistrate



Court

Chief Judicial

Magistrate

4




Quarters.

Senior most Ahalmed/Ste no- grapher

Chief

Ministerial

Officer of the

Senior most Judicial

Officer

Senior most

Judicial Officer.

5

Courts of Judge Small

Cause

Chief

Ministerial Officer of the respective

court.

Registrar, Small Cause

Court.

Judge, Court of

Small Cause.

6 Courts of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) or

Court of Sr. Most Civil Judge at Sub Divisional level

Senior most Ahalmed/Ste

no-grapher

Chief

Ministerial Officer of the

Senior most

Judicial

Officer

Senior most

Judicial Officer.


REGISTRAR GENERAL

78


Correction slip

No.141 Rules/II.D.4. Dated 14-8-2007

The following Rules shall be added as Part H after Part G of Chapter 5 of Rules and Orders of Punjab High Court, Volume-4.





namely :-


(i) These Rules shall be called the “Chandigarh Union Territory

Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007”.




Courts in the Union Territory, Chandigarh.

2. Definitions :




(c) `Authorized Person’ means Public Information Officer and Assistant Public Information Officer designated as such by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.





Judge

(f) `Chief Ministerial Officer’ means'(the Senior most official out of cadre of Readers/Judgment Writers/Stenographers as case may be) of the Court presided over by the senior




Court at a station.


Judge of the concerned Sessions Division as a delegatory

of the competent authority as defined in the Act.

79












time to time.













1. The information which relates to judicial functions and

duties of the Court and matter incidental and ancillary thereto

shall not be disclosed in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act.





final.

2. Any information affecting the confidentiality of any examination/selection process conducted by the District & Sessions Judge under Chandigarh Union Territory Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General

Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 as amended from time to

time.





80


5. Deleted.









not be refunded.








of the application.



listed in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Rules 4 and 5 above, the authorized person, on being so satisfied, shall supply the








(iv) The information shall be supplied as soon as practicable,

normally within fifteen days and in any case not later than thirty

days from the date of the receipt of the application on deposit of

the balance amount, if any, to the authorized person, before

collection of the information. A proper acknowledgment shall be

obtained from the applicant in token of receipt of information.

(v) Deleted.

7. Charging of Fee.




81


the form of a priced publication. On printed price.


Rupees ten per page





with minimum of Rs.





etc.

Rupees one hundred


Rupees two hundred

per CD.



contract.

Rupees Five

hundred per

application.




(iii) The fees given above may be varied/enhanced by the competent authority from time to time.











(vi) A Court fee of Rupees One hundred per appeal shall be affixed

on the application for appeal in Form F.

8. Appeal.

(i) Any person –



A, or




82




the applicant by the authorized person within such period as may be ordered by the Appellate Authority. This period shall not exceed thirty days from the date of the receipt of the order.

9. Penalties.











10. Suo motu publication of Information by public authorities.(i)

The public authority shall suo motu publish information as per

sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act by publishing booklets and/or

folders and/or pamphlets and up date these publications every year as

required by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.








(iv)The appellate authority shall maintain records of all appeals


83

FORM A


(See rule 3)

I.D. No. _________

(For official use)

To



2 . A d d r e s s

3 . Par t i cu la r s o f i n fo rma t ion sough t



( c ) Other details, if any

4. A Court fee of Rs ............. has been affixed on the application.



Telephone No. (Office)...

(Residence)...

Note:

(i) Please ensure that the Form A is complete in all respect and

there is no ambiguity in providing the details of information required.

84

FORM B

Acknowledgment of Application in Form

A I. D. No. Dated


Section



in





A.M. to 1.00 P.M.




collection

of information.


time


Signature & Stamp of the Authorised

Person E-mail

Web-site

Telephone No.

Dated

85

FORM C


[rule

6(i)] No. Dated:

From

To

Sir/Madam,



2. The requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of

the



Yours faithfully,

Authorised Person

E-mail address

Web-site

Telephone No.

86

FORM D

Rejection Order

[rule

6(ii)] No. Dated

From

To

Sir/Madam,




(i)

(ii)

3. As per Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, you may file an appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of the issue of this order.

Yours faithfully,

Authorised

Person E-mail

address

Web-site

Telephone No.

87

FORM E


[rule

6(iii)] No. Dated

From

To

Sir/Madam,



or


The following partly information is being

enclosed.* (i)

(i i)



(i)

(ii)

(iii)


undersigned.*



Yours faithfully,

Authorised

Person E-mail

address

Web-site

Telephone No.

* Strike out if not applicable.

88

FORM F


[rule 8(i)]

I.D. No.


Appellate Authority

Address:


2 . A d d r e s s


( a ) N a m e

( b ) A d d r e s s







[8(i)(b)]







(iii) Period.




Telephone No.

(Office) (Residence)

89

Acknowledgment

I.D. No. Dated


Ms _______________________________________________ resident of _______________ under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Signatures of Receipt

Clerk, Appellate Authority

Telephone No.



REGISTRAR GENERAL


NOTIFICATION

No.327 Rules/II.D.4, Dated 16-8-2007

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5(1) and (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court have been pleased to designate the following officers as the Assistant Public Information Officers, Public Information Officers and the First Appellate Authorities for the Subordinate Courts of U.T. Chandigarh, as required under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Sr. No.

Name of the Court Assistant

Public

Information

Officers

Public

Information

Officers

Appellate Authority

1



Courts of Additional District and Sessions Judges at


b) Courts of Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge at

places where there is no



Sessions

Judge


Chief

Administrative

officer/ Supdt. in the office of

District &

Sessions

Judge

Chief

Ministerial

Officer of the

Court of

Senior most

Additional

District &

Sessions

Judge

District and

Sessions Judge of

t h e r e sp ec t i v e

Sessions Division

Senior most

Additional District

and Sessions

Judge.

90

2

Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division


Clerk of Court of the office of

t h e C i v i l

Judge (Sr. Divn.)

Civil Judge(Sr. Div.)

3


Magistrate



Court

Chief Judicial

Magistrate

4




Quarters.

Senior most

Ahalmed/Ste

no-grapher

Chief

Ministerial

Officer of the


Officer

Senior most

Judicial Officer.

5

Courts of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) or

Court of Sr. Most Civil Judge at Sub Divisional level

Senior most

Ahalmed/Ste

no-grapher

Chief

Ministerial

Officer of the


Officer

Senior most

Judicial Officer.


REGISTRAR GENERAL

91

The Right To Information (Regulation Of Fee And Cost) Rules, 2005

Published vide G.S.R. 336, dated 16.9.2005 and published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3(i), dated 25.9.2005.

22/960

In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:—

1. Short title and commencement .—(1) These rules may be called The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. Definitions .—In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) “Act” means the Right to Information Act, 2005;

(b) “section” means section of the Act;

(c) all other words and expressions used herein but not defined and defined in the Act shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Act.

3. A request for obtaining information under sub-section (1) of section 6 shall be accompanied by an application fee of rupees ten by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque [or Indian Postal Order] payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority.

4. For providing the information under sub-section (1) of section 7, the fee shall be charged by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority at the following rates:—

(a) rupees two for each page (in A4 or A3 size paper) created or copied;

(b) actual charge or cost price of a copy in larger size paper;

(c) actual cost or price for samples or models; and

[(d) for inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and a fee of rupees five for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof).]

5. For providing the information under sub-section (5) of section 7, the fee shall be charged by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority at the following rates:—

(a) for information provided in diskette or floppy rupees fifty per diskette or floppy; and

(b) for information provided in printed form at the price fixed for such publication or rupees two per page of photocopy for extracts from the publication.

© Chawla Publications (P) Ltd.

Page 1 sur 1Right To Information (Regulation Of Fee And Cost) Rules, 2005

12/2/2013http://heserver/act960.htm

92

ANNEXURE P/

N0.F. 1/5/2011 -IR

Government of lndia

Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension

Department of Personnel & Training

******

North Block, New Delhi

Dated April 26,201 1

1. The Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs (except J&K)

2. The Registrars of all High Courts

3. The Registrar of the Supreme Court

Subject:- Harmonization of fee payable under the Right to lnformation

Act. 2005

Sir.

Sections 27 and 28 of the Right to lnformation Act, 2005 empower

the appropriate Governments and the Competent Authorities to make

rules to prescribe, inter-alia, the fees payable under the Act. In exercise

of the powers. the Central Government, State Governments, High Courts

etc. have notified rules. It has been observed that the fee prescribed

by different appropriate Governments/Competent Authorities is at great

variance.

2. The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission has, in this regard

recommended that the States should frame Rules regarding application

fee in harmony with the Central Rules and ensure that the fee should not

become a disincentive for using the right to information.

3. All the States/Competent Authorities are, therefore, requested to

kindly review their Fee Rules and to prescribe fee in consonance with the

fee prescribed by the Government of lndia. A copy of the Right to

lnformation (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 notified by the

Government of lndia is enclosed for ready reference.

93

4. Kindly inform us of the action taken in this regard.

Yours Faithfully

KG Verma

Sd/-

Director

94

THE CENTRAL

INFORMATION COMMISSION (APPEAL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2005

CONTENTS

Rule

1. Short Title and commencement

2. Definitions

3. Contents of appeal

4. Documents to accompany appeal

5. Procedure in deciding appeal

6. Service of notice by Commission

7. Personal presence of the appellant or complainant

8. Order of the Commission

95

THE CENTRAL

INFORMATION COMMISSION (APPEAL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2005

NOTIFICATION

F.No. 1/4/2005-IR, dated:28th Ocotober, 2005 Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated 28-10-2005

G.S.R. 650(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (e) and (f) of sub–section (2) of section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:-

1. Short Title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be called the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) "Act" means the Right to Information Act, 2005 ;

(b) "Section" means section of the Act. (c) "Commission" means the Central Information Commission ; (d) Words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Act,

shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act. 3. Contents of appeal.- An appeal to the Commission shall contain the following

information, namely.- (i) name and address of the appellant ; (ii) name and address of the Central Public Information Officer against the

decision of whom the appeal is preferred. (iii) particulars of the order including number, if any, against which the appeal is

preferred ; (iv) brief facts leading to the appeal ; (v) If the appeal is preferred against deemed refusal, the particulars of the

application, including number and date and name and address of the Central Public Information Officer to whom the application was made ;

(vi) prayer or relief sought ; (vii) grounds for the prayer or relief ; (viii) verification by the appellant ; and (ix) any other information which the Commission may deem necessary for

deciding the appeal. 4. Documents to accompany appeal.- Every appeal made to the Commission

shall be accompanied by the following documents, namely. (i) self-attested copies of the orders or documents against which the appeal is

being preferred ;

96

(ii) copies of documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in the appeal ; and

(iii) an index of the documents referred to in the appeal. 5. Procedure in deciding appeal.- In deciding the appeal the Commission may.-

(i) hear oral or written evidence on oath or on affidavit from concerned or interested person ;

(ii) peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof ; (iii) inquire through authorised officer further details or facts ; (iv) hear Central Public Information Officer, Central Assistant Public Information

Officer or such Senior Officer who decide the first appeal, or such person against whom the complaint is made, as the case may be ;

(v) hear third party ; and (vi) receive evidence on affidavits from Central Public Information Officer,

Central Assistant Public Information Officer, such Senior Officer who decide the first appeal, such person against whom the complaint lies or the third party.

6. Service of notice by Commission.- Notice to be issued by the Commission may be served in any of the following modes, namely.- (i) service by the party itself ; (ii) by hand delivery (dasti) through Process Server ; (iii) by registered post with acknowledgment due ; or (iv) through Head of Office or Department. 7. Personal presence of the appellant or complainant.- (1) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, shall in every case be informed of the date of hearing at least seven clear days before that date. (2) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may at his discretion at the time of hearing of the appeal or complaint by the Commission be present in person or through his duly authorised representative or may opt not to be present. (3) Where the Commission is satisfied that the circumstances exist due to which the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, is being prevented from attending the hearing of the Commission, then, the Commission may afford the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, another opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken or take any other appropriate action as it may deem fit. (4) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person in the process of the appeal while presenting his points and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner. 8. Order of the Commission.- Order of the Commission shall be pronounced in open proceedings and be in writing duly authenticated by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the Commission for this purpose.

97

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01415 dated 29.8.2008

Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19

Appellant - Shri Keshav Kaushik

Respondent - High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh

Date of Hearing 17.11.2008

Date of Decision 21.11.2008

Facts: By an application of 23.5.08 Shri Kaushik sought the following

information from CPIO of High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh:

“1. Kindly supply the Photo copy of my evaluated answer sheet no. 1148, paper V for General Knowledge carrying 25 multiple choice questions written by me on 22.2.2008 from 2 PM to 3 PM for Haryana Superior Judicial Examination.

2. Kindly supply the Photo copy of my evaluated answer

sheet for paper II, Law (Subsidiary Subject) bearing answer sheet no. 5148 dated 23.2.2008 written by me in the morning session from 9 PM to 12 noon for Haryana Superior Judicial Examination.

3. Kindly supply the Photo copy of my evaluated answer

sheet for paper I, Law (Core subject) bearing answer sheet no. 6148 dated 23.2.2008 written by me in the evening session from 2 PM to 5 PM for Haryana Superior Judicial Examination.

4. Kindly supply the Photo copy of my evaluated answer sheet for paper III, English Essay on legal topic bearing answer sheet no. 5148 dated 24.2.2008 written by me in the morning session from 9 AM to 12 noon for Haryana Superior Judicial Examination.

5. Kindly supply the Photo copy of my evaluated answer sheet for paper IV, Hindi Essay on a Social Topic bearing answer sheet no. 7049 dated 24.2.2008 written by me in the evening session from 2PM to 5PM for Haryana Superior Judicial Examination.

6. Information regarding the 14 General vacancies/

posts to be filled for the post of Assistant District Sessions Judge in the State of Haryana pursuant to the notification dated 18.5.2007 and how many candidates were taken from the bar against the

1

98

vacancies/ notification dated 18.5.2007 and how many posts remain vacant category-wise in Haryana Superior Judicial Recruitment.

7. Kindly provide information as to under what provision

of law the General Pool vacancies from the bar were filled up by the candidates of Fast, Track Courts and whether any written examination/ interview or selection process was conducted in respect of the recruitment/ appointment of Fast Track Courts Judges i.e. Additional District Sessions Judges in the Fast Track Courts in the State of Haryana.”

The PIO in his reply dated 31.5.2008 refused to provide the

information desired by the appellant relying upon Rule 4 of RTI Rules

framed by the High Court in accordance with Section 28 of the RTI Act as

follows:

“The requisite information cannot be supplied, as it falls under clause C of rule 4 framed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court Under Section 28 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 called as “High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 which is reproduced below: (C) Any Information affecting the confidentiality of any

examination/ selection process: (I) conducted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court

including for Punjab/ Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and Punjab/ Haryana Superior Judicial Services.”

Thereafter appellant filed his 1st appeal before the Registrar (Admn)

HC of P&H on 12.6.08. In deciding the appeal on 16.8.08, the first

appellate authority Shri AS Narang held that PIO has rightly refused to

part with the information as the information sought by the appellant could

affect the confidentiality of the examination/ selection process, as follows:

“The appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Pritam Rooj vs. University of Calcutta, AIR 2008 Calcutta 118. As far as the information sough for at Point No. 1 to 5 are concerned, I am of the considered opinion that the PIO rightly refused to part with the information, as the information sought for by the appellant affected the confidentiality of the examination/ selection process. In so far as the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Pritam Rooj’s case (supra) is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In the present case there are direct rules

2

99

framed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Right to Information) rules, 2007 which prohibit parting with this information. PIO is a creature of the Statute and is bound by the rules. This Authority is also a creature of the Statute and is also bound by the same. In view of the facts and circumstances explained above, I am of the considered view the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed.”

The appellant then filed second appeal before the Commission on

27.6.08 which was decided by the Commission on 7.7.’08 directing the

Registrar (Admn) of High Court of Punjab & Haryana to dispose of the

appeal within 15 working days but advising appellant Shri Kaushik that

were he to be dissatisfied with the response in 1st appeal he would be free

to move a second appeal u/s 19 sub-section (3) before us.

Now the appellant has filed a fresh appeal u/s 19 (3) on 28.8.2008 in

which he has sought the following relief:-

“This Hon’ble Commission may graciously be pleased to direct the concerned Authority of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh to provide the information sought by the appellant in his first application no. 212/APIO dated 24.5.2008 and in appeal no. RTI/AA/80 dated 2.7.2008 in the interest of justice. And this Hon’ble Commission may further graciously be pleased to impose the penalty on the APIO/CPIO for not providing the information and not deciding the appeal within the statutory period.”

The PIO and the first appellate authority had taken the plea of

exemption under Rule 4 of Punjab & Haryana High Court RTI rules framed

as competent authority u/s 28 of the RTI Act.

It is true that the competent authorities defined in sub-sections to

Sec. 2 sub-section (e) have been accorded with the power of making rules

u/s 28 ibid. But the purpose or rationale behind such power was to

facilitate the process of providing information to the information seeker.

But in the present situation Rule 4 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana

(Right to Information) Rules, 2007 appears to have operated as a

hindrance in providing information to the applicant.

3

100

So as far as Rule 4 is concerned, it cannot stop the Commission

from directing the concerned authority to provide information to applicant if

we find the refusal in contradiction to the Act and therefore it is required

that we exercise our discretion in determining whether the supply of

duplicate evaluated copies of answer sheets is against the law.

The appeal was heard on 7.11.08. The following are present:

Appellant 1. Shri Keshav Kaushik

Respondents at NIC Studio, Chandigarh. 1. Shri A. S. Narang, First Appellate Authority &

Registrar of Admn. P&H High Court, Chandigarh 2. Shri Rajender Singh, PIO & Jt. Registrar, P&H

High Court, Chandigarh

Shri A. S. Narang, Registrar (Admn) P&H High Court submitted that

they have received the notice of hearing only at 12.30 hrs. the same day

and had no time to prepare a response. Appellant Shri Kaushik on the

other hand submitted that he is already in Writ before the High Court

which is to be heard on 11.11.08 for which he needs the information

sought. Upon this Registrar (Admn) submitted that he will support

appellant’s plea for adjournment before the Hon’ble Justices hearing

arguments in appellant’s case on 11.11.08. On these grounds it was

agreed by both parties that the next hearing before us would be by video

conference on 17.11.08 at 4.00 p.m.

However, in the context of the present appeal, this Commission

brought to the notice of Registrar (Admn) High Court of P&H our decision

in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00124 Narendra Yadav vs. High Court of Delhi announced on 13.12.07. In that case appellant’s prayer was for

disclosure of marks sheet together with cut off marks in DJS mains and

written examination, as follows:

“Hon’ble The Chief Justice directed that the matter be placed before a Committee consisting of the Hon’ble Ms. Gita Mittal J., Sh. A.K. Sikri, J. and Shri Mukul Mudgal, J. In their submission of Oct 30, 2007, the Hon’ble Justices recommended as follows:

4

101

“The Committee has been consistently directing disclosure of marks and other non confidential information to the candidates of Delhi Judicial Service Examination, Delhi High Judicial Service Examination and other examinations conducted by this Court. Precedents in the form of information supplied by the Public Information Officer of this Court pursuant to the directions of the Committee may kindly be seen at Flag ’X’. The confidentiality clause in Rule 5 (c) of Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 cannot be invoked to decline disclosure of marks obtained by a candidate in an examination. On the other hand, a candidate is entitled to know the marks obtained in an examination. We are of the opinion that the information sought by the appellant ought to be supplied to him under intimation to the Central Information Commission.”

While allowing the adjournment in the present case Shri A. S.

Narang, Registrar (Admn), P&H High Court was advised to keep the

above recommendations of the Hon’ble Justices of the Delhi High Court in

mind when presenting his arguments before us.

The appeal was the heard by videoconference on 17.11.2008. The

following are present:

Appellant Shri Keshav Kaushik Respondents at NIC studio, Chandigarh Shri A. S. Narang, Registrar. Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate Shri Rajiv Raina, Advocate.

Learned Counsel for respondents Dr. Balram Gupta submitted his

reply to the appeal notice beginning with preliminary objections as follows:

“1. That this Hon’ble Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present appeal, as the subject matter for which information was sought pertains to the State of Haryana. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

2. That a Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 9157 of 2008

filed by the appellant is pending in the Hon’ble High Court, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has directed the respondents to keep the record ready for perusal of the Court and the case is pending for hearing on 2.12.2008.”

5

102

In his arguments before us learned counsel submitted that the

question concerns the selection of Additional District Judges in the State

of Haryana who are appointed and paid by the State Government. For

this reason, he submitted that this was outside the jurisdiction of C.I.C. It

was, however, admitted that only the High Court of Punjab & Haryana held

the information sought by appellant.

On the second preliminary objection, he submitted that since a Writ

Petition was pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court

of Punjab & Haryana, scheduled for hearing on 2.12.08 on a similar

subject, a decision of this Commission could amount to a statutory

authority seeking to decide a matter pending decision before a

constitutional authority. The recourse for appellant would be a Writ of

Certiorari before the Hon’ble High Court in order to obtain the information

sought.

Upon this appellant Shri Keshav Kaushik submitted that it is the

Central Information Commission, which exercises jurisdiction in areas

concerning High Courts, which are Constitutional Authorities. Moreover,

he submitted that he had exercised his right under the Right to Information

Act in moving a second appeal under that Act before this Commission.

The Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana

seeks a different remedy for which he agreed he required information

sought under the Right to Information Act to strengthen his plea before

that Court.

On the merits of this appeal Dr. Balram Gupta, learned Counsel for

respondents submitted that appellant has asked for five answer books.

However, he is not entitled to these u/s 8(1) (e). He also cited the High

Court Rule 4 (c) and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the

following two cases:

“2008 (1) SLR page 397, Para 7: The Courts normally should not direct the production of answer scripts to be inspected by the writ petitioners unless a case is made out to show that either some

6

103

question has not been evaluated or that the evaluation has been done contrary to the norm as fixed by the examining body.

AIR 1984 SC page 1543: In our opinion, the High Court was perfectly right in taking this view and in holding that the “process of evaluation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks” under d. (3) of Regn. 104 does not attract the principles of natural justice since, no decision making process which brings about adverse evil consequence to the examinees is involved. The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be allowed to participate on the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books, and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answer by the examiners.”

Learned counsel Shri Balram Gupta also cited decisions of this

Commission in certain appeals in which in his opinion, this Commission

has held the same view.

On the questions 6 & 7, however, learned Counsel for respondent

admitted that information was admissible and they were ready to supply

the same to appellant. Written arguments of respondents were received

through internet during the hearing, and have been quoted from above. A

copy was handed over to appellant Shri Keshav Kaushik, who in turn

submitted copies of both judicial orders cited by learned counsel for

respondents, i.e. UOI & Ors vs. Vinod Kumar &Ors; AIR 2008 SC 5 and Maharashtra State Board of SHSE and another vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmar Seth etc; AIR 1984 SC 1543

REASONS & DECISION To enable us to decide whether we proceed with deciding the merits

of the case, we have first examined the preliminary objections. On the

first preliminary objection it stands conceded by respondents that the

information sought is held only by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.

Even though, therefore, the information may concern a matter that is the

responsibility of the State Govt., we are here concerned with the access to

the information by appellant Shri Keshav Kaushik. Sec. 2(j) of the RTI Act

is clear:

7

104

Sec. 2(j) - "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority1 and includes the right to— (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of

documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes,

floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;

It is, therefore, the public authority that holds the information, which

is liable to be accessed under the RTI Act, in this case clearly the High

Court of Punjab & Haryana.

On issue No. 2 what has been sought by appellant from this

Commission is an administrative remedy, whereas what he is seeking in

Writ Petition in the High Court is a judicial remedy. It has been the practice

with superior Courts while addressing administrative issues to advise

petitioners to first seek administrative remedy before agitating the matter

before the superior Court. In this case, therefore, the appellant Shri

Kaushik is within his right to seek the remedy sought by him under the

R.T.I. Act so that he may place this before the Hon’ble High Court for its

consideration in disposing of his writ petition. Similarly a writ of certiorari

is a writ seeking administrative remedy. On both preliminary objections,

therefore, we find that the stand taken by the respondents, although most

ably argued, is untenable.

On the merits of the case the following is the decision of the Full Bench in

respect to access of answer sheets in our decisions dated 23.4.2007 in

File No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00223 - Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh and Ors. vs. Lok Sabha Sectt. and Ors. :-

“24. The Right to Information Act was enacted with a view to conferring a right to access information under the control

1 Underlined by us for emphasis

8

105

of public authorities on all citizens. The Act recognizes that an informed citizenry and transparency of information are pre-requisite to a democracy and these are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The Act was enacted in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government and their instrumentalities. 25. However, the definition of the “public authority” as incorporated in the Act widens its ambit and scope even beyond the preamble when it defines a public authority to mean and include any authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted –

(a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State

Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by

the appropriate Government, and also includes.

(i) any body owned, controlled or substantially financed

(ii) non-Government organizations substantially financed, directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate governments.

26. Thus, a University and educational institution under control and substantially financed directly or indirectly by the government is a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, even though the functioning of an educational institution or University may not be directly related to governance as such, the transparency wherein is the key objective of the Right to Information Act. 27. The Act further recognizes that revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Government, optimum use of fiscal resources and the preservation of the confidentiality and accordingly it aims at harmonizing these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideals. To secure these objectives, the Act provides for specified categories of information which cannot be disclosed and as such these are exempted under various provisions of the Act, primarily Sec 8. 28. It is the contention of the appellants that disclosure of evaluated answer sheets is not exempt under any of the subsections of Section 8(1). The respondents including the

9

106

Central Board of Secondary Education have taken the plea that the evaluated answer sheets are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) as there is a fiduciary relationship between the University/Board and the examiner and as such disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets will result in breach of this relationship. The appellants do not agree with this contention of the respondents and in support of their views, they have cited the decision of the Karnataka Information Commission wherein it has been held that there is no fiduciary relationship between the examiner and the University or the Board conducting the examination. 29. This Commission in a number of cases has, however, held that the fiduciary relationship between the examiner and the authority conducting examination exists and therefore, the disclosure of the information is exempt under Section 8(1)(e). In Ms. Treesa Irish Vs. Kerala Postal Circle case (ICPB/A- 2/COC/2006), it has been observed that when the answer papers are evaluated, the authority conducting the examination and the examiners evaluating the answer sheets stand in a fiduciary relationship between each other. Such a relationship warrants maintenance of confidentiality by both of the manner and method of evaluation. That is the reason why while mark sheets are made available as a matter of course, copies of the evaluated answer papers are not made available to the candidates. The aforesaid decision was cited with approval in another case decided by Mrs. Padma Balasubramanian in Shri J. Shahabudeen Vs. Director of Postal Services (ICPB/22/2006). The exemption under Section 8(1)(j) has also been applied by this Commission in case of disclosure of evaluated answer sheets in a complaint case decided on 22.9.2006 in Dr. (Mrs.) Archana S. Gawada Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Others (Complaint No.PBA/06/103). However, a different view was taken in Smt. Bhudevi Vs. North Central Railway, Jhansi where the appellant had some doubt as to whether the paper examined was actually the paper which she had submitted, the Commission had ordered that the complainant be shown the answer sheets which she had written in the said examination. (CIC/OK/C/2006/00079 dated 13.12.2006). 30. Presently, the respondents have taken the plea that disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) as disclosure of the identity of the examiner may endanger the life and physical safety of the examiner and as such the disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets is exempted under Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that they have requested for inspection/copies of the evaluated answer sheets and they are not interested in knowing the identity of the examiners. It is also contended

10

107

that if the authority conducting the examination so desires, it can apply the severability clause enshrined in Section 10 of the Act and withhold the name of the examiner from being disclosed. In this context, the appellants also cited the following observation of the State Information Commission, West Bengal in Shri Utsab Dutta Vs. SPIO, University of Calcutta –

“Here the Commission feels that the words ‘Information’, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person…’ is relevant, though such a possibility of identifying the examiners and scrutinizers by seeing the signature or handwriting on a mere inspection of the answer script is very remote. The Commission further feels that though such possibility is remote, when the University takes care not to disclose the identify of the examinees, it can very well evolve and apply similar or more full proof method of not disclosing the identity of the examiners and scrutinizers.”

31. The word “fiduciary” is derived from the Latin fiducia meaning “trust”, a person (including a juristic person such as Government, University or bank) who has the power and obligation to act for another under circumstances which require total trust, good faith and honesty. The most common example of such a relationship is the trustee of a trust, but fiduciaries can include business advisers, attorneys, guardians, administrators, directors of a company, public servants in relation to a Government and senior managers of a firm/company etc. The fiduciary relationship can also be one of moral or personal responsibility due to the superior knowledge and training of the fiduciary as compared to the one whose affairs the fiduciary is handling. In short, it is a relationship wherein one person places complete confidence in another in regard to a particular transaction or one’s general affairs of business. The Black’s Law Dictionary also describes a fiduciary relationship as “one founded on trust or confidence reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another.” The meaning of the fiduciary relationship may, therefore, include the relationship between the authority conducting the examination and the examiner who are acting as its appointees for the purpose of evaluating the answer sheets. We do not tend to agree with the decision of the Karnataka Information Commission wherein it has been held that in a fiduciary relationship such as between the examiner and the University, there are obligations only on the part of examiner and that the authority conducting the examination being not a trustee has no obligations. Any relationship including a fiduciary relationship is bound to have mutual rights and obligations. Thus, in the case before us where there is fiduciary relationship between the examiner and the authority

11

108

conducting the examination, the obligations are mutual. This relationship does not end once the evaluation of the answer sheets is complete. The concerned authority has to take care that by disclosing identity of the examiner, there is no possibility of an eventual harm to the examiner. Thus, even while disclosing the evaluated answer sheets the authority conducting the examination is obliged to ensure that the name and identity of the examiner is not disclosed. The authorities conducting the examination can, therefore, take recourse to the exemptions provided for under Section 8(1)(j). But applicability of Section 8(1)(j) per-se will not exclude disclosure unless the disclosure is also justified under Section 8(1)(e). The fiduciary relationship between the examiner and the authority conducting the examination is personal and it can extend only insofar as the disclosure of the identity of the examiner is concerned, but it cannot be stretched beyond that point and as such neither Section 8(1)(e) nor Section 8(1)(j) exempts disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets if the authority concerned ensures that the name and identity of the examiners, invigilators, scrutinizers and any other person involved with the process is kept confidential. 32. In so far as application of Section 8(1)(j) to deny disclosure on the ground that personal information which has no public interest is concerned, it is necessary to explain the scope and ambit of this sub section. Section 8(1)(j) reads as under:

“information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information ”

. This Section has to be read as a whole. If that were done, it would be apparent that that “personal information” does not mean information relating to the information seeker, but about a third party. That is why, in the Section, it is stated “unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual”. If one were to seek information about himself or his own case, the question of invasion of privacy of his own self does not arise. If one were to ask information about a third party and if it were to invade the privacy of the individual, the information seeker can be denied the information on the ground that disclosure would invade the privacy of a third party. Therefore, when a citizen seeks information about his own case and as long as the information sought is not exempt in terms of other provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act, this Section

12

109

cannot be applied to deny the information. Thus, denial for inspection/verification of his own answer sheets by a citizen applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) is not sustainable 33. It has been submitted before us at the time of hearing by the CBSE that they have above 9000 schools and there are about 12 lakh examinees each of them appearing in 5 subjects. Thus, there are at least 6 million answer sheets. The examination being a process where no one may feel satisfied with the end result, there will be a general demand of disclosure of the answer sheets and it will give rise to a situation impossible to manage. He also submitted that if the disclosure is allowed, it will lead to a situation where no finality will ever come by. The points raised by the CBSE are not without merit and they need serious consideration. After all it is a matter of common knowledge that the parents and the students are never satisfied with their assessment. Every University and Board has a mechanism for re-evaluation which can be made use of by those who have genuine apprehensions about the fairness of the system. The disclosure, therefore, of the evaluated answer sheets may be taken recourse in rare cases but it cannot have an en-bono application, unless the University or the Board as the case may be introduces a system where the giving back of the evaluated answer sheets becomes or is made a regular practice, which this Commission hereby recommends. 33. Assuming, as contended by the appellants that Section 8(1) (e) cannot be applied in denying the disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets, we would like to examine the matter from another angle, keeping in mind the larger public interest purpose and ambit of RTI Act. The Act is founded on public interest and that is why, even where there are specific exemptions in certain matters, the CPIO has been given the discretion to disclose the same to different authorities if public interest so warrants. 34. The Supreme Court has examined the issue of public interest in the matter of allowing candidates to inspect their answer books or the revaluation of the answer papers in the presence of the candidates, in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth &anr.(AIR 1984 SC 1543). In that case, the Rules framed by the said Board provided “No candidate shall claim or be entitled to revaluation of his answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer books or other 20 documents as these are treated by the Divisional Board as most confidential”. The constitutional validity of the above rule was challenged as being in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court held:

13

110

“The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners.”

The Court, further observing that the constitutional validity of a rule, among other aspects has to be tested to see whether it infringes any of the fundamental rights or other restrictions or limitations imposed by the Constitution, held that the said rule did not infringe any of the fundamental rights. The Court further noting, that the procedure evolved by the Board for ensuring fairness and accuracy in evaluation of the answer sheets had made the system as fool-proof as can be possible , observed as follows:

“The High Court has relied upon the fact that the University of Bombay and some other Universities have recently made provisions permitting candidates to demand revaluation. In our opinion, this has little relevance for the purpose of deciding about the legal validity of the impugned regulations framed by the Board. We do not know under what circumstances the University of Bombay has decided to recognize a right in the examinees to demand a revaluation. As far as the Board is concerned it has set out in the counter-affidavit the enormity of the task with which it is already faced, namely, of completing twice during each year the process of evaluation and release of results of some 3 lakhs of candidates appearing for the S.S.C. and H.S.C. examinations to be held in an interval of only a few months from one another. If the candidates are all to be given inspection of their answer books or 21 the revaluation of the answer papers is to be done in the presence of the candidates, the process is bound to be extremely time consuming and if such a request is made by even about ten per cent of the candidates, who will be 30,000 in number, it would involve several thousands of man hours and is bound to throw the entire system out of gear. Further, it is in the public interest that the results of Public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, It may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in

14

111

regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, beside leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process.”

35. Pointing out the Constitution Bench decision in Fatehchand Himmatlal Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1977 SC 1825), that the test of reasonableness is not applied in a vacuum but in the context of life's realities, the Hon’ble Apex Court further observed:

“If the principle laid down by the High Court is to be regarded as correct, its applicability cannot be restricted to examinations conducted by School Educational Boards alone but would extend even to all competitive examinations conducted by the Union and State Public Service Commissions. The resultant legal position emerging from the High Court Judgment is that every candidate who has appeared for any such examination and who is dissatisfied with his results would, as an inherent part of his right to the ‘fair play’ be entitled to demand a disclosure and personal inspection of his answer scripts and would have a further right to ask for revaluation of his answer papers. The inevitable consequence would be that there will be no certainty at all regarding the results of the competitive examination for an indefinite period of time until all such requests have been complied with and the results of the verification and revaluation have been brought into account”. -------- “ It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the 22 result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.”

36. However, it has been argued before us that the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is prior to the enactment of the Right to Information Act under which every information under the control of a public authority is liable to be disclosed unless it is exempted from disclosure under any of the provisions of this Act. As recently as in 2006, that is after the RTI Act came into effect, the

15

112

Supreme Court has again affirmed the said decision in the President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa V D.Suvankar ( Civil Appeal No 4926 of 2006- Judgment dated 14.11.2006) stating —

“it is in the public interest that the results of Public Examinations, when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of candidates and revaluation is to be allowed as a matter of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of enormity of the labour and time involved in the process The court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.”

37. A reading of the above two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court will reveal that both judgments are based on larger public interest, which is also the foundation of RTI Act. However, in coming to the above conclusions, the Court has taken into consideration the facts that the rules of the Board do not provide for inspection of the evaluated answer sheets, that a large number of candidates are involved, that the examiners are appointed with care, that there is an inbuilt system of ensuring fair and correct evaluation with proper checks and balances 38. There are various types of examinations conducted by public authorities which could be either public or limited examinations. Examinations are conducted for various purposes viz. (i) for admission to educational institutions, (ii) for selection and appointment to a public office, (iii) for promotion to higher classes in educational institutions or in employment etc. There are institutions like UPSC, Staff Selection Commission, CBSE etc, the main function of which is only to conduct examinations. Many public authorities, as those in the present appeals like Jal Board, Railways, Lok Saba Secretariat, DDA, whose main function is not of conducting examinations, do so either to recruit fresh candidates for jobs or for promotion of existing staff. Thus these public authorities conduct both public as well as departmental examinations. 39. In regard to public examinations conducted by institutions established by the Constitution like UPSC or institutions established by any enactment by the Parliament or Rules made thereunder like CBSE, Staff Selection Commission, Universities., etc, the function

16

113

of which is mainly to conduct examinations and which have an established system as fool-proof as that can be, and which, by their own rules or regulations prohibit disclosure of evaluated answer sheets or where the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would result in rendering the system unworkable in practice and on the basis of the rationale followed by the Supreme Court in the above two cases, we would like to put at rest the matter of disclosure of answer sheets. We therefore decide that in such cases, a citizen cannot seek disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act, 2005. 40. Insofar as examinations conducted by other public authorities, the main function of which is not of conducting examinations, but only for filling up of posts either by promotion or by recruitment, be it limited or public, the rationale of the judgments of the Supreme Court may not be applicable in their totality, as in arriving at their conclusions, the above judgments took into consideration various facts like the large number of candidates, the method and criteria of selection of examiners, existence of a fool-proof system with proper checks and balances etc. Therefore, in respect of these examinations, the disclosure of the answer sheets shall be the general rule2 but each case may have to be examined individually to see as to whether disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would render the system unworkable in practice. If that be so, the disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets could be denied but not otherwise. However, while doing so the concerned authority should ensure that the name and identity of the examiner, supervisor or any other person associated with the process of examination is in no way disclosed so as to endanger the life or physical safety of such person. If it is not possible to do so in such cases, the authority concerned may decline the disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets u/s 8 (1) (g). 41. In some of the cases before us, it was argued that there is no question of revealing the identity of an examiner when it is a computer based examination and OMR sheets are issued as in such cases, the assessment is done by the computer. Although the use of this technique is resorted to only where there are large numbers of examinees appearing, the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets in such cases is unlikely to render the system unworkable and as such the evaluated answer sheets in such cases will be disclosed and made available under the Right to Information Act unless the providing of such answer sheets would involve an infringement of copyright as provided for under Section 9 of the Right to Information Act. The same analogy which is applicable in most examinations will mutatis mutandis apply in case of an examination conducted with optical marking system.

2 Emphasis now added for ease of reference

17

114

XXXX 43. Before us are appeals in relation to examinations conducted by CBSE, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Jal Board, DDA and North Western Railways. Insofar as CBSE is concerned, we have held that denial of disclosure has been correctly done. In respect of the other public authorities, we are of the view that each public authority conducting examinations shall disclose the evaluated answer sheets to the applicants subject to the guidelines set forth in the preceding paragraphs.3 The other cases are remanded back to the concerned Information Commissioner for issuing appropriate directions taking into consideration the broader principles laid down and indicated in the preceding paragraphs.”

In the present case we would categories the examinations

conducted by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at the same level as

those of Lok Sabha Secretariat, Jal Board, D.D.A. and Northern-Western

Railways. At any rate even with regard to those examinations which we

have held exempt from such disclosures, we have the decision of the High

Court of Calcutta in which Shri Sanjib Banerjee J of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 22176 of 2007 (reported in AIR 2000 Calcutta 118.. This

order has been relied upon by appellant Shri Kaushik in his 1st appeal, a

plea that was rejected on 16.8.08, by the first appellate authority Shri AS

Narang on the grounds that, “PIO is a creature of the Statute and is bound

by the rules. This Authority is also a creature of the Statute and is also

bound by the same” We have therefore examined this order by which the

High Court of Calcutta has held as follows:

x x x x “48. And then there is the Central Information Commission’s judgment of April 23, 2004. In addressing a question, whether answer scripts should be furnished following a request to obtain information made under the said Act, the Commission framed two main questions. The first was as to whether the disclosure of evaluated answer scripts was exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the said Act, and the second as to whether such disclosure was exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act. Section 8(1)(e) exempts the disclosure of any information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. Section 8(1)(e) exempts the disclosure of any information which would endanger the life

3 -ibid-

18

115

or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. 49.In dealing with such questions, the Commission noticed the argument made on behalf of the public authorities before it that an examining body is obliged to not disclose the identity of the examiners as such disclosure would be in breach of the fiduciary duty said to be owed by the examining body to the examiners. The connected argument was also noticed, that upon the identity of the examiners being revealed their lives and physical safety may be at risk. It is not necessary to go into the reasons as to why the Commission found that neither Section 8(1)(e) nor Section 8(1)(g) exempted disclosure of the evaluated answer scripts as the Commission held that only the disclosure as to the identity of the examiners was exempted. It is the argument as to the unworkability of the right to inspect answer scripts that ultimately weighed with the Commission. In the words of the Commission.

“… it is matter of common knowledge that the parents and the students are never satisfied with their assessment. Every University and Board has a mechanism for re-evaluation which can be made use of by those who have genuine apprehensions about the fairness of the system. The disclosure, therefore, of the evaluated answer sheets may be taken recourse in rare cases but it cannot have an en-bono application, unless the University or the Board as the case may be introduces a system where the giving back of the evaluated answer sheets becomes or is made a regular practice, which this Commission hereby recommends.”

50. The Commission thereafter noticed the Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth case, a Constitution Bench judgment in Fateh Chand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra reported as (1977) 2 SCC 670: (AIR 1977 SC 1825) and the Suvankar case to conclude that the Supreme Court pronouncements negating an examinee’s right to demand disclosure and personal inspection of his answer script, were based on larger public interest which the Commission also found to be the basis of the said Act. The Commission thereafter proceeded to make a distinction between public examinations conducted by institutions established by the Constitution or by any enactment like the Union Public Service Commission or Universities or the Central Board of Secondary Education and examinations conducted by other public authorities whose principal function is not of conducting examinations but who hold examinations for filling up posts either by promotion or by recruitment. The

19

116

commission held that for public authorities designed to conduct examinations, a citizen cannot seek disclosure of the evaluated answer script under the said Act. But for other public authorities incidentally conducting examinations, “the disclosure of the answer sheets shall be the general rule but each case may have to be examined individually to see as to whether disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would render the system unworkable in practice”. The Commission added a rider to the case of public authorities incidentally conducting examinations : the identity of the examiner, supervisor or other person associated with the process of examination should not be disclosed so as to endanger their lives or physical safety, and if it was not possible to make over the information without concealing the identities of the connected persons, the public authority could decline the disclosure of the evaluated answer scripts under Section 8(1)(g) of the said Act. In case of departmental examinees, the Commission took a view that disclosure of proceedings and disclosure of answer scripts, not only of the examinees but also of the other candidates, was necessary to bring in fairness and neutrality for the system to be more transparent and accountable.

51.In effect, the Commission discovered an exemption not

expressly provided for in the statute to deny information despite accepting that the words used in the said Act could not be read to be a bar to the right asserted thereunder, But more on the Commission’s opinion later. 52. In its long title the said Act proclaims to set about a personal regime of right to information for citizens. The preamble opens with a reference to the Constitution having established a democratic republic and the need, therefore, for an informed citizenry. The preamble reveals that the legislature was mindful of the likely conflict between revelation of information and efficient operation of the Governments: of optimum use of resources: and, most significantly, the need to preserve the paramount virtue of the democratic ideal:

“Whereas the Constitution of India has established Democratic Republic; And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the government; And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments,

20

117

optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information: And whereas it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal: Now, therefore, it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to have it.”

53. If it is the preamble that has to be looked into for the reason for, or the spirit of, the statute as a key to open the minds of the makers of the Act and the mischief they intended to redress, the makers appear to have been alive to the likely difficulties of the executive to live up to the Act. x x x 66. Right to information jure gentium has to be understood on the commission’s opinion that is the evidence of what the law is, on the basis of how courts have interpreted the right under Article 19 of the Constitution. As the said Act is of rent vintage, the principle of contemporane exposition is not available for the opinion of the Central Information Commission, to the extent of its understanding that there is no express bar in the said Act to answer scripts being otherwise made available, to be relied upon. Yet such Commission is a body that deals with matters under the said Act and reads the words of the statute on a regular basis to direct or refuse the disclosure of information. The Commission answered the two questions directly raised on the provisions of the said Act against the public authorities and yet found the hardship factor call it inconvenience or unworkability which is not expressly included in the statue as a ground for exemption to be standing in the way of the answer scripts being made available to their authors. But though the examinees failed before the Central Information Commission there is a pious wish recorded in the order for their benefit recommending making over of answer scripts to examinees upon a regular procedure being set down in that regard.

67. On a plain reading of the right amplified under the aid Act the question that it ought to stimulate upon a request being received is not why, but why not. If information has to be supplied unless it is exempted the reason for refusal has to be found in Section 8 or not at all.4

4 Emphasis ours

21

118

68. Since three of the ten clauses of Section 8 (1) of the said Act have already been referred to the other seven may be seen. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 deals with information that would compromise the sovereignty or integrity of the country and like matter; clause (c ) covers such matters which would cause a breach of privilege of the Parliament or the State Legislatures; clause (d) protects information of commercial nature and trade secrets and their ilk; clause (f) prevents information being disseminated if it is received in confidence from any foreign government; clause (h) bars access to such information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; clause (i) forbids records and papers relating to deliberations of ministers and officers of the executive being made available, subject to a proviso and, clause (j) prohibits disclosure of personal information unless there is an element of public interest involved. The proviso at the foot of clause (j) appears to cover the entirety of section 8 (1) notwithstanding the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The manner in which the exceptions to the rule have been carved out in section 8 and the proviso which appears to govern all the cases covered by Section 8 (1) of the said Act makes the exemption section exhaustive.

69. Construction of a statue on the grounds of hardship or inconvenience or in justice or absurdity or anomaly arises if the statute presents a choice. The said Act does not appear to present one. For the rule of mischief to come into play there have to be material words that are capable of bearing two or more constructions. The rule of purposive construction or the mischief rule as enunciated in the Heydon case has been accepted by the Supreme Court in the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported at 1955 (2) SCR 603; (AIR 1955 SC 661) “23 It is a sound rule of construction of a statue firmly established in England as for back as 1584 when Heydon’s case (3 Co. rep 7a; 76Er 637) was decided that –

“……for the sure and true interpretation of all statues in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law) four things are to be discerned and considered: 1st What was the common law before the making of the Act, 2nd What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide. 3rd What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth., and 4th The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of all the Judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and

22

119

evasions for continuance of the mischief and proprivato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act pro bona publico.”

70. Even if the Heydon questions were to arise in the present case the answers to them would not permit the disclosure of answer scripts being resisted. There is no discernible change of law attempted by the said Act. It has fuelled the burgeoning aspiration of a people for transparent governance. If there is any mischief that the said Act seeks to address. It is to make the right guaranteed by the Constitution more explicit. The remedy that the Parliament has prescribed is to cure the malaise of clandestine, cloak and dagger functioning of any public authority. The true reason of the remedy is to ensure a level playing field. 71. If then there is hardship in its implementation or in the fructification of the aspirations recognized therein it is not for the Court to rein in the desirable curiosity that the Act has unleashed but for other measures to be adopted to pave the way for its operation. If the Central Information Commission could have recognized the spirit of the Act to have recommended the return of answer scripts to examinees, that there is an immediate hardship or harsh consequence is of no relevance. 72. The Act provides a right to receive information and the consequence of the making over of such information is immaterial in the matter of construction of its provisions. As to whether an examinee would use the information received on inspection of his answer script to undo the finality of the process of examination is not an argument that can be considered to curb the operation of the state. The Act begins with a citizen’s right to obtain information and ends with the information being made available to him or his request being justly rejected on the grounds recognized by the Act what happens before and what may be the consequence of the information being made available or rightfully denied is a matter beyond the operation of the Act. 73. The University’s first challenge (and it is, indeed the University’s challenge as the onus is on the rejection being required to be justified) that what an examinee seeks in asking for inspection of his answer script is not information at all cannot be accepted. In the stricter sense if such answer script answers to the description of information. Whether such information is of the examinee’s creation counts for little. In the broader perspective, if a document submitted takes on any marking it becomes a new document. The University’s offer of making the marks allotted to each individual question available to all candidates is fair and

23

120

laudable but not if it comes with the rider that the answer scripts should then be exempted from being divulged. Notwithstanding the principle of severability contained in Section 10 of the said Act the answered paper with or without an examiner’s etchings thereon is not information exempted under any of the limbs of Section 8. 74. As a matter of principle, if answer scripts cannot be opened up for inspection it should hold good for all or even most cases. Since the said Act permits a request for third party information, subject to the consideration as to desirability in every case, a third party answer script may, theoretically be sought and obtained. The University’s first argument would then not hold good for a third party answer script would be information beyond the knowledge of its seeker. 75. There is an understandable attempt on the University’s part to not so much as protect the self and property of the examiner, but to keep the examiner’s identity concealed. The argument made on behalf of the public authorities before the Central Information Commission has, thankfully, not been put forward in this case. This University has not cited the fiduciary duty that it may owe to its examiners or the need to keep answer scripts out of bounds for examinees so that the examiners are not threatened. A ground founded on apprehended lawlessness may not stultify the natural operation of a statue, but in the University’s eagerness here to no divulge the identity of its examiners there is a desirable and worthy motive- to ensure impartiality in the process. But a procedure may be evolved such that the identity of the examiner is not apparent on the face of the evaluated answer script. The severability could be applied by the coversheet that is left blank by an examinee or later attached by the University to be detached from the answer script made over to the examinee following a request under section 6 of the Act. It will require an effort on the public authority’s part and for a system to be put in place but the lack of effort or the failure in any workable system being devised will not tell upon the impact of the wide words of the Act or its ubiquitous operation. 76. Whether or not an examiner puts his pen to the answer script that he proceeds to evaluate would not rob the answer script of retaining its virtue as information within the meaning of the said Act even if it is made available for inspection in the same form as it was received from the examinee. The etchings on an answer script may be additional information for a seeker but the answer script all along remains a document liable to be sought and obtained following a request under section 6 of the Act. That the etchings may be pointless or that they may be arbitrary or

24

121

whimsical in the absence of any guidelines, makes little difference. 77. Education is more than just reading prescribed texts and taking examinations in a given format, it is more than a garnering of degrees, certificates and diplomas. Any real education requires the amassing of knowledge that may or may not be in the prescription for an examination. An educated human being may also strive to create a new body of knowledge that is outside the purview of prescriptions. There can be no education if limits are imposed on the amount and type of knowledge an individual may gather or create. A democracy can only be functional in all its aspects extents and senses when there is an informed citizenry. 78. The right to information is the most basic empowerment of the individual- the right of an individual to the source of any knowledge required for him to educate him self in any are he may choose. 79. An examining authority may not tell a student that he must learn how to answer questions in the format the examining authority desires, yet leave the examinee uninformed of the manner of evaluation. The examining authority cannot be exacting in its demand for transparency and clarity in answers to its questions, and yet remain in scriptable and veiled in its methods of evaluation. An examining authority has every right to judge the student’s knowledge and expression of that knowledge, but it cannot take away the examinee’s right to know the methodology of and the criteria for its evaluation. But again this is straying into the zone of the consequence of information of the subject kind being made available. XXXX 81. If inspection of answer scripts is denied to the examinee, the spirit of the Constitutional right to expression and information may be lost5. The knowledge builder’s the University’s bid to perpetuate the draconian, elitist, one sided right to know and judge and rule without being open to question or accountable to the examinee cannot be encouraged. For a system to foster meaningful proliferation of knowledge it must itself be crystal clear to this core. 82. In the University’s zeal to limit the scope of the request for information under the said At, one may get a whiff of its inertia; its innate resistance to change, almost a sublime refusal to perceive or acknowledge how all around it has

5 Emphasis added

25

122

moved along. History and tradition may be cherished and preserved. But evolution cannot be impeded as it is a means for survival. If there is no infrastructure to receive the change, the need to change cannot be negated, it is possible that public authorities as the university do not desire accountability as it is a demanding taskmaster and it is difficult to shrug off old habits. It is equally likely that while public examining bodies make an ostensible show of concern for the examiners, there is a realization that a more open scrutiny of evaluated answer script will require more care and caution than the low remuneration- and that is a notorious fact- to examiners can command. 83. Access to answer scripts may have the desirable side effect of ensuring that there is no loss of any of the papers. It is not unknown for answer scripts of Board and other examinations to have been found in dishonourable places that they should never have reached, and the awareness, that there may potentially be a request for furnishing every answer script may result in its better preservation. In a sense, he despair that has driver many a student to take his life in recent times may be addressed if students have access to their evaluated answer scripts. 84. The University’s final shield is, formally, the Court. It seeks to tuck the answer scripts behind the apparently insurmountable wall of Supreme Court judgments. Apart from the fact that Section 8 (1) (b) of the said Act has to be read in the light of the overriding effect of the said Act sanctioned under Section 22, the argument on such score is as much a show of desperation as the floodgate theory. 85. There are two parts to Section 8(1) (b) of the Act: information that has been expressly forbidden to be published by any Court of Law or Tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of Court. It is a disjunctive “or” after the word “tribunal”. It is trite that an act may not be expressly forbidden by a Court and yet its commission would amount to contempt of Court. In the first limb of the clause, the expression “expressly forbidden” operates on the word “information”. It necessarily implies that, that which is sought by way of a request has to be a matter that is expressly forbidden to be made available. The judicial embargo has to be explicit and a general observation may not be cited as a bar. An express prohibition has to be more specific than what the University brings by way of Supreme Court judgments, even if its best arguable case is taken. It does not appear that the University here has stressed much on the second arm of the clause. Even the latest Ayan Das case has not altogether forbidden answer scripts being offered for inspection by a Court to an examinee. The Suvankar case spoke of the ills of court – sanction

26

123

interventions in the process of evaluation that may rob it of its timely finality. The Suvankar case deals with the consequence of information being furnished and cannot be seen as an impediment to the information in the form of answer scripts being made available. It is a matter that comes into play, as noticed above, in the zone beyond where the said Act operates. 86. The Supreme Court’s reference in the Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth case to the audi alteram partelm rule not operating in the twilight zone of expectations has to be read in the background of the immediate lis and the more general rule that was laid down. The challenge in that case was to two clauses of one of the regulations of the Secondary and Higher Secondary Council that barred reassessment and prohibited inspection of answ4erscripts. The restrictions were found to be reasonable. The matter was not considered in the light of the enactment which is the subject matter of the present proceedings, even if it is accepted that the said Act only elucidates on the right originally guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no evil in a right born in the Constitution being enlarged by subsequent legislation nor any doubt as to the legislative competence to do so. If the right already existed under the Constitution, Parliament may widen its sweep and operation. A privilege granted under Part III of the Constitution can be legitimately magnified in keeping with the Constitutional vision in Part IV, abreast with the changing times when the said Act’s avowed purpose is to bring about transparency and curb corruption. 87. Judicial discipline demands deference to precedents not only of the hierarchical superior but also of a forum of coordinate jurisdiction but it does not command a fawning obeisance in the deification of any precedent. As society progresses and aspirations rise, it shakes off the shackles that it invented in its infancy or adolescence. Marvels of yesterday become relics of today. If the Central Information Commission can rightfully aspire for a day when answer scripts would accompany the mark sheets, that there is no facility therefore today would not lead to the natural words and import of the said Act to be constricted by any concern for the immediate hardship and inconvenience. The umbra of exemptions must be kept confined to the specific provisions in that regard and no penumbra of a further body of exceptions may be conjured up by any strained devise of construction. In a constitutional democracy, every limb and digit of governance is ultimately answerable to the government.” 6

6 Emphasis added

27

124

We had already in our interim order of 7.11.’08 conveyed the decision

of the High Court of Delhi in reviewing the application of rule 5 (c) of the

Delhi High Court Right to Information Rules 2006.the Decision of the High

Court of Calcutta read together with the instructions of the High Court of

Delhi and the Decision in Full Bench of this Commission, leads to the

inevitable conclusion that in this case, the answer scripts are disclosable

to the author. The Registrar High Court of Punjab & Haryana is now directed to provide the information sought to appellant Shri Keshav Kaushik within ten working days of the date of issue of this decision notice including questions 6 & 7 already agreed to. It is also

recommended to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana u/s 19(8) (a) that

they may consider a similar review as that undertaken by the High Court

of Delhi of its rule 5, of rule 4 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana

(Right to Information) Rules, 2007

The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no costs.

Reserved in the hearing, this decision was announced in open

chamber on 21.11.2008. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the

parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 21.11.2008

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission. (Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 21.11.2008

28

125

pil arjun sheoran v high court punjab- hc rti rules

Documents

chandigarh rules

haryana rules

punjab rules

information rules

haryana high court

high court of punjab

haryana right

respondents chandigarh