CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Transcription

1 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (Room No.315, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi ) Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) Information Commissioner CIC/SA/C/2015/ (Video Conference Bangalore) Vijay Prakash Gupta Vs. Dept of Legal Affairs, GOI Important Dates and time taken: RTI: FA: Hearing: Complaint: Dismissed Decision: Parties Present: The Complainant is present for video conference at NIC Centre, Bangalore. The Public Authority who came after the scheduled hearing is represented by Mr. Sunil Kumar Sah, Section Officer. FACTS: 2. Complainant through his RTI application had sought for information regarding Mrs Neelam Sharma (Advocate), Notrary. He wanted certified copy of the extracts of the notary register in from XV as provided under Rule 11 (2) of the Notaries rules, 1956 recording the execution of the rent agreement for the period 01/09/2013 to 30/09/2013, certified copy of the extracts of the register maintained by the notary in view of the provisions under Rule 11 (9) of the Notaries Act, 1956 pertaining to the receipt of fees and the charges realised by the said notary for the period 01/09/2013 to 30/09/2013. PIO replied on stating CIC/SA/C/2015/ Page 1

2 that the department is not the custodian of the notary register of the notary public. It remains in the custody of the notary public itself. Being unsatisfied, Complainant filed first appeal. FAA by his Order dated disposed of the appeal stating that as the CPIO has informed that after the receipt of notice of appeal, a letter dated has already been sent to the concerned notary for providing photocopies of the notary register from to , the CPIO was directed to provide the required information to the notary public within 15 days. In compliance of FAA Order, a copy of the notary register was provided to the complainant on Claiming non compliance of FAA Order and providing of incomplete information, complainant has approached the Commission. DECISION: 3. Vijay Prakash Gupta, against whom domestic violence complaints and criminal cases under Section 498 IPC were filed, is seeking from Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi, certified copies of a) extract of Notarial Register recording the execution of rent agreement between Sh Rakesh and Mrs Chitra Gupta (his wife), b) details of realization of fees and charges by notary from his wife, c) receipt of fee charged by notary for this document, copy of title page of notarial register. 4. The CPIO stated that he was not custodian of the Notary register, hence he could not provide the same. The First Appellate Authority has directed CPIO to provide required information within fifteen working days. The Commission pursued the order dated by Zoya Hadke, the First Appellate Authority. The FAA noted that notary is the third party, but did not ask CPIO to follow the procedure to obtain views of the third party, Notary. Strangely the FAA has ignored the fact that it was not just the Notary, but the wife of appellant and owner of the house who leased are also third parties. More over information about the rental agreement between the wife of appellant and some other person has nothing to do with general public. The notary extract about that private transaction, fee paid to notary and receipt for fee is also not concerned with any public activity. Only when there is a complaint that notary is extracting huge amount from clients, seeking the copy of receipt, could be a considered to have relation with the public activity. The private CIC/SA/C/2015/ Page 2

3 information of persons unconnected with public cannot be ordered to be disclosed. He totally ignored section 8(1)(j) that prohibits the private information not related to any public activity. Especially when a husband, being an accused and respondent in several criminal and civil cases, filed by his wife, is repeatedly misusing the RTI to extend harassment to court officers and the Commission also, then, the exempting provisions of information law cannot be ignored. Except extract of notary register, which is a public document, nothing can be given to the petitioner. If notary register deals with a transaction between two private persons, that also will be a private information if it does not relate to public activity. 5. In Vijay Prakash Gupta Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, No. CIC/SA/C/2014/ (through Video Conference from Bangalore), the appellant sought notary related information about execution of rent agreement for the period to While in this second appeal he is seeking notary information about execution of rent agreement on , which is already covered in the earlier application and second appeal. In earlier case the extract of the notary was given to him by the CPIO, yet he filed second appeal and sought inspection, though he had inspection by that time. It was disposed of on 11 th June 2015, where in another inspection of notary register was ordered by CIC. Such inspection was facilitated. In order to pursue the harassment, he pursued second appeal in this RTI application also, now in the form of complaint against CPIO, wherein Vijay Prakash Gupta wanted penalty to be imposed misrepresenting that First Appellate Authority was not complied with. The appellant inspected twice the notary register and took the extract of the concerned page from the register which established the transaction of rent agreement. 6. It is just repetition of the earlier application. This appellant/complainant has no respect for law, RTI and public money or time. Record shows that he went on filing several frivolous and repeated applications with sole aim of harassing his wife without caring whether any public loss is being caused in the process. This complaint is false, malicious and wrongful. When he had already inspected the same register for same transaction for CIC/SA/C/2015/ Page 3

4 whole of month of September 2013, how can he seek re inspection for that transaction for one date ( ) within that month only? 7. Vijay Prakash Gupta has misused RTI to run a parallel trial along with the trial in courts of law. On record he was admonished by this Commission for this kind of misuse in several cases. The adamant attitude of Vijay Prakash Gupta in pursuing frivolous cases to harass his wife compels this Commission to infer that his wife s complaint of harassment must have some merit and basis. This complainant has already caused wastage of money and time of public servants and authorities. He deserves to be disqualified and discouraged. The Commission strongly feels that this cantankerous appellant must be asked to pay costs to the public servants who are harassed by his frivolous applications. The Commission rejects this complaint as frivolous, purposeless, malicious, against law, false and harassing, Authenticated true copy (M Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Address of parties 1. The PIO under the RTI Act, Government of India Department of Legal Affairs (RTI Cell), Implementation Cell, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi Shri Vijay Prakash Gupta CIC/SA/C/2015/ Page 4

5 No.59/1, 3 rd Floor, 1 st N Block Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore CIC/SA/C/2015/ Page 5