ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Mon, Sep 23, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> High Court >> Grounds for Rejection
Supreme Court(Grounds for Rejection)/ CIC(Grounds for Rejection)
S.No. HIGH COURT CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
1 W.P.No.26763 of 2013 (High Court of Karnataka)
(167.93 KB) pdf icon
09 Jan, 2019 State Public Information Officer & Deputy Registrar (Establishment) Vs. Karnataka Information Commission and others

Information Sought
The brief facts of the case are that the second respondent herein filed an application on 07.05.2012 in W.P. No. 26762/2013 seeking certified copies of notices received by the office of the Registrar General from advocate Dr. S. Krishnamurthy seeking to desist from continuing to use pirated Surabhi 2000 Kannada software, action taken on the notice received from advocate Dr. S. Krishnamurthy, replies sent to the notices received from advocate Dr.S.Krishnamurthy and names and contact details of the Registrar Generals of the High Court of Karnataka during 2009-10. In W.P.No.26763/2013 application dated 04.06.2012 is filed seeking information pertaining to bringing to the knowledge of the supplier of Surabhi 2000 Kannada software about copying of Surabhi Kannada software and its installation in the computers of courts subordinate to High Court of Karnataka and other similar information. The applications filed under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’ for short) are produced as Annexure-A to both the petitions. Pursuant to the applications, the State Public Information Officer had issued endorsements dated 25.06.2012 and 21.06.2012 in W.P.No.26762/2013 and W.P.No.26763/2013, respectively.

Decision of High Court
In the case of Registrar, Supreme Court of India (supra), it is held as under:
“53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizens the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information
which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.
54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency.”

In the case of State Public Information Officer and Deputy Registrar, High Court of Karnataka vs. N.Anbarasan reported in ILR 2003 Kar.3890 this Court has held that as some of the information sought in the said case was available under Karnataka High Court Act and Rules made thereunder, it was not open for the respondent to ask for copies of the same under the RTI Act. He stated that the information in respect of item Nos. 6 to 17 in the said case related to Writ Petition No.17935/2006 and as the respondent was a party to the said proceeding, it was open to the respondent to file an application, in accordance with the Rules, for certified copies of the order sheets or the relevant documents.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion, if any information can be accessible through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI
Act cannot be resorted to. In the case on hand, the information which is sought by the second respondent related to the legal notice which is issuer by the second respondent through his advocate. This is available with the second respondent. In respect of other documents related to O.S.No.4132/2010 which was pending in the Civil Court, Bangalore, he can obtain the same by applying for the certified copies as per the provisions of
Rule 230 of the Rules of Practice. Since the second respondent is party to the proceedings he can apply for the certified copies and obtain the same. Provisions of Rule 230 of Civil Rules of
Practice is extracted herein below:
“230. Application by a party- A party to a suit or proceedings is entitled, at any stage of the proceeding, to obtain copies of the record of the suit or proceeding, including documents which have been admitted in evidence. [Irrespective of whether the documents so admitted in evidence are originals or certified copies]”

The State Information Commission, without considering these provisions of the Act has passed an order. It is not justified in directing the petitioner to furnish the copies sought in the applications. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders at Annexure-F dated 30.04.2013 in both the petitions are quashed.
2 WPC No. 845/2014
(198.26 KB) pdf icon
05 Feb, 2014 Shail Sahni Vs Sanjeev Kumar and ors.

Section 7(9) – Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority – The Hon’ble High Court held that the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. Misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this ‘Sunshine Act’. A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.
3 W.P. (C) 5812/2010
(30.22 KB) pdf icon
08 Nov, 2013 Upsc Vs Pinki Ganeriwal

Section 8(1)(I) – Personal Information- Section 8(2) – Larger Public Interest –Details Of Date Of Birth, Institution & Year Of Passing Graduation, Field Experience Of Company And Marks Obtained In Interview And Caste Of the Selected Eleven Candidates for appointment as Dy. Director Of Mines Safety (Mining) In Director General Of Mines Safety, Dhanbad Under Ministry Of Labour And Employment, New Delhi. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the information such as date of birth, institution and year of passing graduation, filed experience and caste is personal information of the selected candidates.
Total Case uploaded: 3