TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, “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. - LPA 24/2015 & CM No.965/2015 - - - Dated:- 7-1-2016 - HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH For the Appellant: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ritesh Kumar and Mr.Mayank Bamniyal, Advocates For the Respondent : M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he extent that it requires the information regarding the period for which the judgments are pending after being reserved to be placed in public domain cannot be sustained. However, the learned Single Judge upheld the direction of CIC to maintain the records in a manner so that the information regarding the period for which the judgments are pending after being reserved is available with the petitioner in future. 5. Assailing the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.12.2014 to the extent of upholding the direction of the CIC to maintain the records as mentioned above, the present appeal is filed by the writ petitioner. 6. We have heard Shri A.S. Chandhiok, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Prash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant that the information to which the applicant can have access to is only the information which is held by any public authority. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel only that information which is already available with the public authority can be supplied under the Act. Placing reliance upon the decision in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay Ors.; (2011) 8 SCC 497, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to collect or collate the non-available information and then furnish to an applicant. 11. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 at length. 12. In CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay Ors. (supra), it has been held: 35. At this juncture, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation and right to information under Section 2(f) and Section 2(j)(iv) apart from sub-Section (9) of Section 7 which provides that an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought. This aspect has also been considered in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay Ors. (supra) and it was made clear in Para 64.1: 64.1. Sub-clause (i) of Section 19(8)(a) empowers a Commission to require the public authority to provide access to information if so requested in a particular form (that is, either as a document, microfilm, compact disc, pen drive, etc.). This is to secure compliance with Section 7(9) of the Act. 14. As we could see, even under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, the public authority is obligated to maintain all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
