Speed Post Dated: 18.02.2020 From The Appellate Authority Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh. To Arjun Aggarwal, Re: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005. it is to inform you that, your appeal has been dismissed by the First Appellate Authority vide its order dated 18022020 A copy of order dated 18102.2020 passed by Ld. Appellate WW Superintende t(R I) for Registrar Appellate Authority (RTIL Authority is attached herewith. Encls: As above. .1. BEFORE RAINISH KUMAR SHARMA APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RIGBT ATION ACT 2005 Appeal Date of Registration: 10.02.2020 Date ofDecision: 18.02.2020 Versus Public Information Officer, Punjab 8: Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. ,,..Respondent Present: None. ORDER 1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed an application dated 09.12.2019 before the Ld. Public Information Officer (bearing ID No. dated 12.12.2019], l-lon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. PIO) seeking following information:- Kindly state date on the Enquiry Report was sent/furnished/comlnunicated L0 Hon'ble Mr. justice Krishna Murari, former Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National University ofLaw, Punjab. 2. Kindly state date on which the Enquiry Report was sent/furnished/communicated to both parties i.e. the complainants and the respondents in the aforementioned matter. 3. Kindly provide copy of the Enquiry Report in the aforementioned matter. 2. Vide impugned order dated 31.01.2020, Ld. disposed of the above said application in the following manner:- "lt is hereby intimated that the report in question, as per your version, was submitted before Honourable the Chief justice in the capacity of Honourable Chancellor afthe University and not in the capacity of Comparedwim Honourable the Chief lustice of this Public Authority, the ig' atu O/oFirsr/ippefl L'ontuLP/ My that is, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana, Chandigarh. The Rafiv GandhiNational University of al) -2- Law, Punjab, is a separate authority, and if any document relating to that authority was submitted to Honourable the Chief Justice-cum-Chancellor of the University, that information is accessible by that authority and not by this Hon'ble Court. The appropriate Governments and Competent Authorities have been defined under Section 2(a) and (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), which is as under:"2 (e) "Competent Authority" meansxx xx xx xx iii. the Chief Justice of the High Court in the case of a High Court; xx xx xxxx" Further, Section 2(j) of the Act provides as under:"Right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right toi. inspection of work, documents, records; ii. taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; iii. taking certified samples of material; iv. obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device" .4.s per Section 2(e)(iii) of the Act, Honourabie the ChiefJustice of this Court is the 'Competent Authority' of this Hon 'ble Court only and the undersigned, so designated by Honourable the Chief Justice, under Section 5(1) of the Act, is authorized to supply only that information, which is held by/accessed by/under the control of this Hon'ble Court/Public Authority. The Hon 'ble Full Bench of Hon 'ble Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated 12.1.2010 passed in LPA No.501 of 2009, has observed as under:"xx xx xx xx 59. Therefore, according to Cappel the word "held" suggests a relationship between a public authority and the information akin to that of an ownership or bailment of goods. In the law of bailment, a slight assumption of control of the chattel so deposited will render the recipient a depository (see Newman v. Bourne and Hollingsworth (1915) 31 T.L.R. 209). Where, therefore, information has been created, sought, used or consciously retained by a public authority will be information held within the meaning of the Act. However, if the information is sent to or deposited with the public authority which does not hold itself out as willing to receive it and which does not subsequently use it or where it is accidentally left with a public authority or just passes the Ori . through a public authority or where it belongs to an Official) employee or officer of a public authority but which is 0/o Firs: App .. Arthority (Rfltaught by that employee or officer unto the public PHHC, 02:;.,;d oo lf ~l?.'l?.~ authority's premises it will not be information held 1 by the public authority for the lack of the requisite Contd.P/3 ... -3- assumption by the public authority of responsibility for or dominion over the information that is necessary before the public authority can be said to hold the information ... . xxxxxxxx,, In view of the above, since the information in question is not held by/under the control of this Public Authority, that is, Hon 'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, hence, the information cannot be accessed to by this Public Authority." 3. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid response received from the learned PIO, the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 08.02.2020, received on dated 10.02.2020, in the office of this forum. 4. On receipt of appeal, notice of personal hearing was issued to the parties, but, none has appeared. However, the appellant has sent a request dated 16.01.2020, to allow him to represent through audio/video conferencing, but said request has been considered and declined, as this authority does not have any facility of audio/video conferencing. Further, appellant has filed his written submissions through official email id of this Court on 18.02.2020. 5. Record of the Ld. PIO has been summoned and perused carefully. 6. In his grounds of appeal, appellant has submitted that PIO has illegally and wrongly denied the information and has not transferred his RTI application under RTI Act, to the concerned public authority. At the end, he has requested this authority to provide the requisite information free of cost. 7. Having due regards to grounds of appeal, written arguments dated18.02.2020 and keeping in view record of Ld. PIO so summoned, this authority is of view that, appeal filed by the appellant lacks substance. The perusal of queries put by appellant indicates that these are Contd.P/3 .... -3- with respect to the report submitted to the Chancellor of Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, who at that time was the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, but, the whole act in question solely 1 relates to the ' Enquiry", initiated by the Chancellor of Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab and not with respect to any act/conduct/information of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. At this juncture, it is important to understand that an Officer/Judge when authorized by law, can perform certain acts/duties in different capacities e.g. when a Hon'ble Judge is holding a Court of Law then he is performing a Judicial duty, when he is a part of any committee or so, he is performing an administrative duty and when he is appointed as a chairman/chancellor of any college/university, then he is performing his duties as a Chairman/Chancellor and that duties performed by him as a Chancellor /Chairman cannot deemed to be associated with his Judicial office/work/duties. In short, queries raised by appellant relates to the work/conduct done by the Chancellor of Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law and are not with respect to the office of Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, is a separate authority, and if any document relates to that authority, then information can be accessible by that authority and not by any other public authority. To support this view, this authority has taken strength from the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 (in short "the Act") whereby, Section 2( a) and (e) of Act provides as under:- Compared with the OR!?in~lrft:der (SlgJJ/Jrril$iiJcial) 0/o First Appel/a~ Ar,thori!l._ (RTl) PHHC, Dafed (J::.(~?;1- .J.f Contd.P/4 .... -4"2(e )"Competent Authority" means- xx xx xx xx (iii) the Chief Justice of the High Court in the case of a High Court; xx xx xx xx" Further} Section 2(j) of the Act provides as under:- i. ii. iii. iv. "Right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right toinspection of work, documents, records; taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; taking certified samples of material; obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device" From these provisions of the Act} one can understand that} Honorable the Chief Justice of this Court is a 'Competent Authority' of this Hon'ble Court and PIO of this Court can supply only that information which relates to this Hon'ble Court and is available in his records and if otherwise RTI Act permits, but, here the queries/information sought, relates to the Chancellor of Rajiv Gandhi University of Law, and hence, same cannot be presumed to be "held" by the public authority of this Court. Furthermore, Hon'ble the Full Bench of Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated 12.1.2010 passed in LPA No.501 of 2009, has observed the same in the following manner:"xx.xx.xx.xx 60. CQmpared with the r:'gine~er n1f~ Therefore, according to Coppel the word "held" suggests a relationship between a public authority and the information akin to that of an ownership or bailment of goods. In the law of bailment, a slight assumption of control of the chattel so deposited will render the recipient a depository (see Newman v. Bourne and Hollingsworth (1915) 31 T.L.R. 209). Where, therefore, information has been created, sought, used or consciously retained by a public authority will be information held within the meaning of the Act. However, if the information is sent to or deposited with the public authority which dog_s not hold itself out as willing to receive it and which does not subsequently use it or where it is accidentally left with a public authority or just passes Contd.P/5 ..... 0/o Firsf ,i:i,J,o;~l/ate t.f:hority (RT!JJ n,. o'<>d , ;1 -:vo r PHHC ....... -~ vi:n<, o ,. . . I {?- t..r~.o ooooo o. -5- through a public authority or where it belongs to an employee or officer of a public authority but which is brought by that employee or officer unto the public authority's premises it will not be information held by the public authority for the lack of the requisite assumption by the public authority of responsibility for or dominion over the information that is necessary before the public authority can be said to hold the information ... . XXXXXXXX II Furthermore, the information sought by appellant relates to the office of Chancellor of Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law and not with respect to any information available in the records of PIO of this Court and when any information is not available in the records of PIO, the same cannot be provided by him. To say so, this authority has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.B.S.E. Vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) wherein it is held as under:"At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RT/ Act. The RT/ Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (fl and UJ of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authoritv. is not --- and where such information ... required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an _ applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. 11 Compared with the Orig~':!,_e~ . ,rrl~ Ole fir;: f::,!,frorityJf!TlJ J.~..7r>.-o'!!--- .-\ppioila~ PHHC. :..:,, :,.cJd oo Contd.P/6 ... -6- Furthermore, the appellant has submitted that, PIO has not transferred his RTI application to the concerned public authority as per law. To this point, this authority is of view that the queries under consideration prima facie clearly provides that the matter solely relates to the Raj iv Gandhi National University of Law which is a separate public authority and appellant being an advocate presumed to have knowledge of proper authority and when a person has knowledge of proper public authority and still he files an application under RTI Act, 2005 to some other public authority then PIO is not bound to transfer his RTI application and same has held by Hon'ble Central Information Commission in "Case No. CIC/SA/A2016/001483 titled as R.S. Gupta Vs. LG Office". Accordingly, it is held that reply given by Ld. PIO on these points is legally tenable, warranting no interference. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is concluded that the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. 9. Since, the appeal of appellant is dismissed, in view of the provision of Section 19(3), RT.I, Act, 2005, the appellant is at liberty to file second appeal within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before Central Information Commission or State Information Commission. Copy of this order be sent to the appellant through speed post 10. forthwith. Record of Ld. PIO be returned and file be consigned to records after due compliance. 18.02.2020 -.o. ?h dwith Comp?r?? der he Ongt t S? ?u hori!JPYjRTIJ ?/::- O:ir?t Ap? o "(.,-, )ate .lf?:.,.?. PHHv if' 1 el- rl/.. ? Superin???? Sd/(RAJNISH KUMAR SHARMA) APPELLATE AUTHORITY Th.Adent Punjab & Haryana High Court Chandigarh