TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preme Court (whether serving or retired) be maintained separately for each judge so as to ensure that the summary of such expenses for each judge are available separately. The Central Public Information Officer of Supreme Court (hereafter 'CPIO') was directed to place the impugned order before the competent authority so as to ensure compliance of the same. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that on 25.10.2010, respondent no.1 - Subhash Chandra Agarwal filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the 'Act') with the Central Public Information Officer, Department of Justice, Government of India, inter alia, seeking the following information:- "5. Details of medical-facilities availed by indivi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l expenses of individual judges reimbursed by the Supreme Court during the last three years, both in India and abroad, wherever applicable. The CIC also directed CPIO to bring the order to the notice of the competent authority in the Supreme Court for ensuring that arrangements are made in future for maintaining such information. 5. By an order dated 30.08.2011, CPIO provided the total amount reimbursed on medical treatment from the budget grant for three years in respect of Judges (sitting & retired) and employees of the Supreme Court. CPIO also informed that the judge-wise information was not maintained as the same was not required to be maintained. Dissatisfied with the reply of CPIO, the respondent filed an appeal before the CIC for co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of in case of Shri Mani Ram Sharma v. The Public Information Officer: CIC/SM/A/2011/000101-AD, decided on 18.07.2011 had held that if the required information was not maintained in the manner as asked for, the CPIO could not be asked to compile the data. It was submitted that a bench cannot overrule the decision of a co- ordinate bench. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent contended:- 7.1 That the information which exists and is held by the public authority but is not being compiled or kept in a manner in which it is accessible in a transparent manner then a direction can be given to the public authorities to maintain and provide the information in a particular manner so as to achieve the object and purpose behind the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be an invasion of the privacy. 9. Apparently, the CIC has passed the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section 19(8)(a)(iv) of the Act, as explained by the Supreme Court in Aditya Bandhopadhyay (supra). The power under Section 19(8)(a)(iv) of the Act is to ensure compliance with Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. Section 4(1)(a) of the Act reads as under:- "4. Obligations of public authorities.-(1) Every public authority shall - (a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by an individual. Thus, unless a larger public interest is shown to be served, there is no necessity for providing such information. Thus, clearly, a direction for maintaining records in a manner so as to provide such information is not warranted. 13. I had pointedly asked the learned counsel for the respondent if there was any larger public interest that was being pursued and he fairly did not answer in the affirmative. 14. The information sought by the respondent is financial and indisputably, the same would be available in the financial records. The contention that the petitioner does not have such information is erroneous, as each item of expenditure or reimbursement would be maintained in the financial records and in a given circums....