TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the High Court of Madras. Later on, the matter is said to have been transferred to the Delhi High Court. Subsequently, on account of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the matter stands transferred from the Delhi High Court to the District Court. 3. The respondent filed an application while the suit was pending in this court summoning the satisfaction folder from the office of the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Civil Lines, Ludhiana. This court by order dated 28.10.2013 allowed the same and the records were summoned along with the satisfaction note relating to the raids conducted upon the group concern of the respondent on 14.10.1993. 4. The witness on behalf of the Income Tax Department appeared on 12.08.2016 to prove the satisfaction note. The sealed envelope was opened in the presence of the witness and for the purpose of hiding the identity of the informant white fluid was applied on the name and the signatures of the informant and the envelope was sealed again. The respondent did not cross-examine the said witness. 5. Immediately thereafter, the respondent filed an application on 26.09.2016 under the RTI Act. The following information was sought: "1. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2019 and 26.07.2019. None appeared for the respondent today also. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the CIC has not appreciated the fact that the documents, namely, the 'satisfaction folder' is a part of judicial proceedings initiated by the respondent himself and cannot be provided to the respondent. Reliance is also placed on Rule 7 of the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008 to submit that there is a clear exemption granted with respect to judicial proceedings pending in a court of law. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of The Registrar, Supreme court of India vs. R.S. Mishra, 2017 (244) DLT 179. It is also pointed out that the respondent has later on filed an RTI application dated 16.09.2018 seeking various information including the complete official address, total service and posting of the Presiding Officer Sh. Mukesh Kumar, ADJ who had passed the order dated 12.08.2016 in the suit of the respondent. 13. The respondent has filed his written submissions. Allegations are made that the order of this court dated 28.10.2013 by which the 'satisfaction folder' was to be summoned has not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the respondent. The obvious remedy of the respondent was to challenge the said order in a higher forum but he has chosen to press the application under the RTI Act seeking copy of the said satisfaction folder. 16. Reference in this context may be had to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case The Registrar, Supreme court of India vs. R.S. Mishra(supra). This is also a case where the RTI applicant had sought information pertaining to a judicial matter in which the applicant himself was a party. The Court held as follows: "45. Section 22 of the RTI Act has an overriding effect over other laws in case there are inconsistencies. However, Section 22 of the RTI Act does not contemplate to override those legislations, which aims to ensure access to information. 46. In fact, it contemplates harmonious existence with the other enactments which, like the RTI Act, also provides for dissemination of information. In Namit Sharma Vs. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745, the Supreme Court has held as under:- "79. Let us now examine some other prerequisites of vital significance in the functioning of the Commission. In terms of Section 22 of this Act, the provisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 18. Even otherwise, this High Court under Section 28(1) of the RTI Act read with Article 232 of the Constitution of India has framed the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008. Rule 7 (iv), (v) and (vi) of the said Rules read as follows:- "7. Exemption from disclosure of information: The Public Information Officer or the Assistant Public Information Officer may not provide the information to the applicant on the following grounds: xxx (iv) The information amounts to intrusion in the judicial work of any court. (v) The information amounts to overreaching a decision of any judicial body which was authorized to provide the information but has declined to do so. (vi) The information to be sought relates to a judicial proceeding, or judicial functions or the matters incidental or ancillary thereto. xxx" 19. Hence, in view of the above Rules, there is exemption from disclosure of information which pertains to judicial proceedings or judicial functions of the court. The application of the respondent seeking a copy of a document which forms part of the judicial record would clearly be exempted from Rule 7 of the aforenoted Rules. In fact the said court where ....