Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed

WHICH route to follow for information

Recommended Posts


Some public authorities specially courts have their own mechanism to provide information and they mandate RTI applicant to use that route only there by subverting right of applicant under RTI Act. I attach CIC decision dated 05-05-2015 which decides that route to be followed has to be decided by information seeker and he cannot be compelled to use only specified route for getting information.


It is heartening to note that CPIO is worried about Rs.3/- loss per page. Presuming that in a year his Court supplies say 500 pages under RTI then loss would be Rs.1500/- only. He does not want to let go this petty amount to enable citizens/tax payers to exercise his fundamental right, while every one knows wastage of good public money by public servants not only in courts but other govt offices and outside. This is in addition to loot of public through corruption and horrible delays in offices. We are lucky to have such public servants who account for every paisa when it comes to common citizens who pay taxes which fund courts and govts.


I too was a public servant for 31 years.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Central Information Commission

Mranurag Kumar vs Bank Of Baroda on 9 January, 2015


It was observed by the CIC that;


In the above context, we note that the matter concerning another RTI application, seeking


certified copy of a petition filed by the Respondents in that case in the Supreme Court and


the related documents, was considered and disposed of by us in our order No.


CIC/SH/A/2014/000215 dated 27.5.2014. In that order, we noted, inter alia, the


following observation made by the Commission in its order No. CIC/SM/A/2011/900950


dated 18.4.2012:* "In many decisions in the past, we have held that since the High Courts and


the Supreme Court of India have devised their own rules and procedures for disclosing


certified copies of judicial records including judgments of the Courts, the citizens must get


the copies of such records only under those rules and procedures and not under the Right to


Information (RTI )Act. The provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act cannot override


the disclosure provisions contained in these orders and rules since there is nothing


inconsistent in them. Therefore, in this case also, the Appellant has to get the copies of the


judicial records by adopting the procedure laid down under the Order XII Rule 3 of the


Appellate Side Rules of the High Court."

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This decision is contrary to settled principles of law.


The question whether a general enactment can abrogate an earlier special enactment came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Ashoka Marketing Limited and Another Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (1990) 4 SCC 406 in which the Hon'ble SC applied and explained the legal maxim: leges posteriors priores conterarias abrogant, (later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws). This principle is subject to the exception embodied in the maxim: generalia specialibus non derogant, (a general provision does not derogate from a special one). This means that where the literal meaning of the general enactment covers a situation for which specific provision is made by another enactment contained in an earlier Act, it is presumed that the situation was intended to continue to be dealt with by the specific provision rather than the later general one (Benion: Statutory Interpretation p. 433-34). One of the principles of statutory interpretation is that the later law abrogates earlier contrary laws. This principle is subject to the exception embodied in the second latin maxim mentioned above.


The Supreme Court in R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka & Another, reported in (1992) 3 SCC 335, quoted from Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, the following passage:


"A general later law does not abrogate an earlier special one by mere implication. Generalia specialibus non derogant, or, in other words, where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier and special legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so. In such cases it is presumed to have only general cases in view, and not particular cases which have been already otherwise provided for by the special Act.”


The Hon'ble Apex Court again applied this principle in the case of Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur Vs. Thakur Manmohan Dey & Others, AIR 1996 SC 1931.


Later on this issue came up before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of RoC Vs Dharmandra Kumar Garg and the Hon'ble Court held that the applicant should obtain the information in accordance with the provisions of Section-610 of the Companies Act, 1956.


In view of this, the present decision of the IC is illegal and contrary to law.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • garg0505
      By garg0505
      Recently PIO of public authority, in a RTI application submitted u/s 6 of the RTI Act, responded to applicant after the stipulated time, you please visit the office of his junior and inspect the file/files, and after inspection of the files obtain the documents by depositing the money itself. Therefore, please provide expert opinions about the issue, as in my opinion no such provision do available to PIO to direct the information seekers under RTI Act. However if applicant desires himself to inspect the files, then option available to applicant to file the RTI application under section 2(j)(I) of the RTI act.
    • ashakantasharma
      By ashakantasharma
      Seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be costly at times. Especially when you are asked to cough up as much as Rs 56,000 for some information, you would probably think again before using the Act.
      Advocate Vinod Sampat, too, was shocked when he was asked by the Andheri Land Records office to pay an amount of Rs 56, 268 to get information on the structures located on collector’s land across the city.
      Sampat had made an application on September 21 to inquire about it. He needed the accurate information to be part of the reference books he is writing on property matters. “I wanted information on such properties because buying properties situated on collector’s land costs an extra amount,” said Sampat.
      “However, I was shocked to see the amount asked by the Andheri office,” he said. And the amount was asked only for information on the properties situated under the jurisdiction of Andheri office.
      A shocked Sampat wrote to the Chief Information Commissioner Suresh Joshi, on Wednesday, asking him to ascertain the amount demanded from him. He also wrote to the Land Records Officer, Andheri, MT Ingle seeking a clarification on how the amount was arrived.
      As per RTI rules, Rs 2 per page is demanded to provide information. “That means they were giving me 28,000 pages as information,” said an amused Sampat.
      He said that if his queries were not answered, he would file an appeal with the appellate authority.
      When contacted, Ingle said he had charged Sampat according to the rates specified by the state government and the revenue department.
      Joshi said that in such cases, it is better for the applicants to ask for the inspection of the files so that they can pin-point the actual documents needed. They can also come in appeal to the commission, he said.
      “The information officers can charge rates only as prescribed by the state government and in this case, it is found that the concerned officer is trying to willfully mislead the people, strict action will be taken,” he added.
      However, Sampat said that the inspection point should have been mentioned in the letter, “instead of just frightening the applicant by demanding such an astronomical amount.”
      “Do you believe that the Land Records office must have counted all the 28,000 pages?”
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy