Delhi High Court
Virendra Yadav vs Central Public Information ... on 19 January, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 495/2015
VIRENDRA YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Adv.
versus
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER (CPIO) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Mr
Rajendra Sahu, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 19.01.2015
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.04.2014
passed by the Central Information Commission (in short CIC).
2. Evidently vide an application filed under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (in short RTI Act), dated 21.01.2013, the petitioner, sought
information with regard to Chairpersons of Indian Bank Association (IBA),
who were appointed to the said organization since 01.01.2000.
2.1 The said RTI application was filed with the Department of Financial
Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. This information was
denied by the CPIO of the said department vide a response dated
25.02.2013. The basis for rejecting the RTI application, was that, the
information sought, did not rest with the said department and, therefore, it
was suggested that the applicant may approach the IBA for seeking
information, alluded to, in the RTI application.
3. The petitioner , preferred an appeal against the order of the CPIO
which met the same fate and was, consequently, rejected vide order dated
08.04.2013. This is how the second appeal was preferred with the CIC. The
CIC in its order provided briefly the following rationale in declining the
relief sought for by the petitioner:
"....6. The CPIO submitted that no information regarding
the Indian Banking Association was held with the public
authority and no regular meeting of the officials of the
Department of Financial Services (on periodic basis) to be held
with the Indian Banking Association were prescribed. The
appellant had not specified information, i.e., any particular
date/ name of the officer, who had held any such official
meeting with the Indian Banking Association. Hence, it would
not be possible to provide any information to the appellant..."
(emphasis is mine)
3.1 Accordingly, the CIC accepted the stand of the CPIO of the concerned
department that the information sought did not rest with it.
4. In the captioned writ petition, the order of the CIC has been assailed.
The challenge is principally laid, on the ground, that the Department of
Financial Services, Ministry of Finance could have taken recourse to
provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act and referred the petitioner to the
department/ the ministry, which held the information.
5. A perusal of the petition would show that there is an averment to the
effect that the CIC vide order dated 06.08.2008, held that, the IBA, was not
a public authority, within the meaning of the RTI Act.
5.1 I have not been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner
any order of a superior court which has taken a contrary view, qua IBA.
Therefore, a very interesting issue gets thrown up, which is this: Can
information pertaining to a particular entity which is declared, not be a
Public Authority, within the meaning of a RTI Act, in proceeding taken out
to ferret out information, be accessed via other entity (which is a public
authority).
6. That apart, it has been pointed out by Mr Jasmeet Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, that the CPIO,
in a sense, has followed the procedure of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, in as
much as, it suggested the petitioner to approach the IBA for seeking the
necessary information.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, in order to buttress his
submission, has drawn my attention to an office order dated 29.01.2013,
issued by the very same department. He has referred me to serial no. 8,
based on which it is suggested by him that the information sought for by the
petitioner is available with the CPIO of the Department of Financial
Services.
7.1 A bare perusal of an extract of the said order, which is set out below,
would only show that it alludes information pertaining to dissemination of
results and important information pertaining to studies on banking reforms.
"..... Data Analyais: Reserve Bank of India Credit Policy - Busy
Season - lack Season and selective credit control; financial sector
assessment and sectoral credit analysis; Banking Statistics
regarding bank deposits and advances, Dissemination of results
and important information relating to RBI, IBA, studies on
banking reforms; analysis of other international reports relevant
to banking sector in India; analysis of Reports of Committee on
Financial Sector Reform etc....."
7.2 Mr Jaipuriar, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that the above
extract shows that it also holds important information pertaining to IBA
generally, including information related to the Chairpersons appointed to the
IBA. To my mind, the extract does not read as suggested by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Notwithstanding the confusion created by
unnecessary punctuation marks and manner in which the provision is
drafted, the only sensible way to read it is the one indicated above by me.
7.3 This apart, what is notable is the fact that the CPIO of Department of
Financial Services, in no uncertain terms, has said that the information
sought is not available with him. I have no reason, to doubt, presently, the
veracity of the stand taken by the CPIO, and that too, only on the basis of
office order dated 29.01.2013.
8. At this stage, Mr Jaipuriar also seeks to place reliance on Section 2(f)
of the RTI Act. On being queried, he candidly concedes that there was no
averment made with regard to the provisions of Section 2(f) before the
authorities below. There is, thus, no reference to provisions of Section 2(f).
8.1 Nevertheless, Mr Jaipuriar, based on the provisions of Section 2(f)
says since, information means, 'information' relating to any private body
which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time
being in force - the public authority, in this case, the Department of
Financial Services, should be able to acess it from the IBA. This submission
of Mr Jaipuriar, to my mind, begs the question. Once IBA is declared as an
entiry which is not a public authority, the RTI Act cannot be used to access
information from the IBA. Besides, the RTI Act, Mr Japiuriar has not
referred me to any other law which the Department of Financial Services
can take recourse to seek information from IBA of the kind that the
petitioner seeks.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 19, 2015
kk
