TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emsp;The appellant filed RTI application dated 7-3-2016 seeking information on impugned orders in relation to the cases as mentioned in the RTI application; to upload the details of the impugned orders on the Supreme Court's website; and inspection of digital data of the cases. 4. The CPIO responded on 7-4-2016. The appellant filed first appeal on 12-4-2016 with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 6-5-2016. The appellant filed second appeal on 12-5-2016 with the Commission on the ground that information on point Nos. (A), (B), (F) & (G) may be provided; original records relating to the information sought may be summoned and penalty be imposed on the CPIO. CIC/RK/A/2016/001294 : 5. The appellant filed RTI application dated 7-3-2016 seeking information on impugned orders in relation to the cases as mentioned in the RTI application; to upload the details of the impugned orders on the Supreme Court's website; and inspection of digital data of the cases. 6. The CPIO responded on 6-4-2016. The appellant filed first appeal on 12-4-2016 with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 6-5-2016. The appellant filed second appeal on 12-5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imposed on the CPIO. CIC/RK/A/2016/001361 : 13. The appellant filed RTI application dated 5-4-2016 seeking information on impugned orders in relation to the cases as mentioned in the RTI application; to upload the details of the impugned orders on the Supreme Court's website; and inspection of digital data of the cases. 14. The CPIO responded on 3-5-2016. The appellant filed first appeal on 9-5-2016 with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 6-6-2016. The appellant filed second appeal on 13-6-2016 with the Commission on the ground that information on point Nos. (A)(iv) may be provided; original records relating to the information sought may be summoned and penalty be imposed on the CPIO. CIC/RK/A/2016/001362 : 15. The appellant filed RTI application dated 21-3-2016 seeking information on impugned orders in relation to the cases as mentioned in the RTI application; to upload the details of the impugned orders on the Supreme Court's website; and inspection of digital data of the cases. 16. The CPIO responded on 26-4-2016. The appellant filed first appeal on 11-5-2016 with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 7-6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all the above mentioned matters are identical and may be heard together. 25. The appellant referred to his RTI applications and stated that he has sought the details of impugned orders viz. the name of court passing the order, date of judgment and the case number and also sought the inspection of the digital data in relation to the cases mentioned in his RTI applications. The appellant stated that he has not sought certified copy of any impugned order. The appellant stated that no information has been provided by the respondent. 26. The appellant further stated that he had earlier sought similar information vide his RTI application dated 28-1-2016 and the same was duly provided by the CPIO vide his letter dated 26-2-2016. The appellant further stated that once the information is held by the Public Authority, it cannot be denied to the appellant unless it is exempted. However, the CPIO has not claimed any exemption under the RTI Act. 27. The appellant referred to his additional documents and stated that the screenshot of the Supreme Court information kiosk available at the Court premises to litigants and lawyers, etc., clearly shows that the information is held by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... State of West Bengal & Ors., in which the Court held that, "To the extent of Section 4(1)(b) there is an obligation on the respondent authorities to put it on the website the details contained in sub-section (b) of Section 4(1), it is also pertinent to mention that if such website is not available, it is open to the applicant to make an application seeking specific details and not a general application. If such information which is required to be maintained in registers and official records is asked, the authorities are bound to furnish such information". 35. The appellant further referred to a decision of this Commission bearing Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000195 dated 11-9-2012 [2013 (295) E.L.T. 46 (CIC)] titled as C.P. Anarkat v. Commissioner of Cus. & C. EX., Rajkot, in which the Commission directed the respondent to put on its website the Service Tax Audit Manual, 2011. 36. The appellant further stated that for such details, there should be search facility on the website of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 37. The respondent referred to the CPIO's reply and stated that it is not clear from the RTI applications of the appellant as to what details of the impugned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove, "Right to Information" under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant". 42. The respondent further referred to a judgment passed in Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer & Ors. in which the Court held as, "of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., have been passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial decisions. A judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him. If any party feels aggrieved by the order/judgment passed by a judge, the remedy available to such a party is either to challenge the same by way of appeal or by revision or any other legally permissible mode. No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons the judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge is not bound to explain la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tent in those rules and orders. The common objective of both the Right to Information (RTI) Act and the rules and orders of the Supreme Court of India is disclosure of information. Therefore, any citizen seeking certified copies of judicial records must get such records by adopting the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court and not under the Right to Information (RTI) Act". 48. The respondent further referred to a decision of Commission passed in Appeal No. CIC/RM/A/2014/004655 titled as Shri Manoranjan Barik v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India in which the Commission observed that, "The High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 11271/2009, decided on 1-6-2012 in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. held inter alia that "Therefore, if another statutory provision, created under any other law, vests the right to seek information and provides the mechanism for invoking the said right (which is also statutory, as in this case) that mechanism should be preserved and operated, and not destroyed merely because another general law created to empower the citizens to access information has subsequently been framed." 49. The respondent further state....