PIO (Kerala High Court): The administrative file which transpires the processing of the letter containing the opinion of the Registry is held in a fiduciary capacity; Information is in the exclusive domain of the adjudicating authority - CIC: Reply upheld

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.12.2022 seeking information on following points:-

“1 Copy of the administrative order in the letter from Frsharasit@gmail.com to cjsec.hc ker@gov.in dated 07.12.2022 regarding topic seeking help from my lordship to merge all the same matter before the part heard bench

2 while passing the order, did the Judicial observation and order of the learned magistrate of Ifmc 5, Thirvananthapuram in cmp 1467/2022 have considered or not. If so, why ?.”

The CPIO, Public relations officer vide letter dated 24.12.2022 replied as under:-

“1. The administrative file which transpires the processing of the letter under reference which contains the considered opinion of the Registry, is in possession of this Public Authority in a fiduciary capacity, which requires substantiation by way of larger public interest for disclosure to be facilitated. Hence, the document sought for is restricted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. The query pertains to the eliciting of information in the exclusive domain of the adjudicating authority. Hence, the query cannot be brought within the purview of seeking 'information', as per Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2022. The FAA, Deputy Registrar vide order dated 12.06.2023 stated as under:-

“Attention is invited to the references cited.. In this regard, it is informed that the Appeal cited as first paper above has been duly considered by the First Appellate Authority and disposed of vide order dated 27.01.2023, cited as second paper above. The same was sent to the appellant by ordinary post on 28.01.2023.

In the light of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide judgment cited as third paper above, a copy of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 27.01.2023 in the Appeal cited first [RIA(Appeal) 25/2022] is forwarded herewith.”

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Absent

Respondent: T.S. Arun PRO &CPIO

The CPIO reiterated the content of the RTI reply dated 24.12.2022 given to the appellant and the same is reproduced herein:

The administrative file which transpires the processing of the letter under reference which contains the considered opinion of the Registry, is in possession of this Public Authority in a fiduciary capacity, which requires substantiation by way of larger public interest for disclosure to be facilitated. Hence, the document sought for is restricted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. The query pertains to the eliciting of information in the exclusive domain of the adjudicating authority. Hence, the query cannot be brought within the purview of seeking 'information', as per Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”

Decision:

Keeping in the view of the case and the submissions made, the commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the CPIO no further intervention of the commission is required in the instant matter. Hence, with the above observation, the second appeal stands disposed off.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Asif Azad v. Kerala High Court, CIC/KLHCE/A/2023/632604; Date of Decision : 03.09.2024