Apka Adhikar

LIST OF DATES AND EVENT

The petitioner, by way of filing the present Writ Petition under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays this Hon’ble Court for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari and that of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction against the respondents herein, thereby directing the respondents to provide the information(s) sought by the petitioner herein vide his application dated 02.06.2006 under Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, 2005) and impose penalty on respondent no 2 and respondent no 3.

Petitioner is a licensed, independent, senior insurance surveyor empanelled with United India Insurance Company Limited (UIIC Ltd.) at its Hyderabad Regional Office. During January 1999 petitioner’s name was unilaterally, without being given a hearing de-listed from the panel of surveyors of UIIC LTD. on grounds of fraud by a client. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner neither an enquiry was conducted. Petitioner was also not given any opportunity to present his case.

October 1997 : Petitioner conducted investigation in the insurance claim matter related to the policy of Ravindranath Fruit Canning Industries (P) Ltd., Chithoor.
28.11.1997 : Petitioner submitted an investigation report along with bill for payment of Rs. 15,699.00 as professional fees and other expenditures incurred along with travelling allowance and daily halting allowance. The bills of the petitioner were not cleared by the UIIC LTD. stating the reason that Ravindranath Fruit Canning Industries (P) Ltd. has done fraud in his claim.

06.01.1999 : Petitioner’s name was delisted from the panel of surveyors of UIIC LTD. without issuing any show cause notice or giving any opportunity of being heard.
1998 : Ravindranath Fruit Canning Industries (P) Ltd. filed a complaint against the UIIC LTD before National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC). UIIC LTD. in this case, used the report prepared by the petitioner as evidence before the NCDRC.
10.01.2006 : NCDRC in its judgment relied upon the report made by the petitioner and passed an order allowing the claim of Rs. 36,29,967.00 along with interest @ of 10% per annum to be paid to Ravindranath Fruit Canning Industries (P) Ltd. A cost of Rs. 1,00,000.00 was imposed on UIIC LTD..
04/06.03.2006 : Petitioner, after this order of the NCDRC, approached the UIIC LTD. for reinstatement of his name in the panel of surveyors and for clearing his bills, but UIIC LTD. did not reinstate his name and did not clear the bills of the petitioner.

I

08.08.2006 : Petitioner filed the first application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, 2005) before respondent no 2 seeking reasons for delisting his name from the panel of surveyors. This application contained set of ten questions seeking details of the same.
12.09.2006 : As the respondent no 2 did not reply to the application of the petitioner within statutory period of 30 days, as provided under section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, the petitioner filed the first appeal with the respondent no 3 seeking direction from him to the respondent no 2 to provide information for free. Under section 7(6) of the RTI Act 2005.
12.09.2006 : The respondent no 2 vide a letter informed the petitioner that his request for obtaining information has been denied as it is exempted under sections 8(1) (d) (e) (g) and (h) of the RTI Act 2005. This letter was received by the petitioner on 19.09.2006
18.09.2006 : Respondent no 3 replied to the petitioner saying that the information sought by the applicant is exempted under sections 8(1) (d) (e) (g) and (h) of the RTI act 2005.
21.09.2007 As the letter of the respondent no 3 was not received by the petitioner till date, after receiving the reply from the respondent no 2 wrote a letter to the respondent no 3 in continuation of petitioner’s earlier appeal dated 12.09.2006 refuting the grounds of rejection of the reply as informed by the respondent no 2.
03.10.2006 : Respondent no 3 replied again to the petitioner reiterating the statement of its earlier letter and again informed the petitioner that the information sought by the petitioner is exempted under sections 8(1) (d) (e) (g) and (h) of the RTI act 2005.
16.10.2006 : Petitioner filed second appeal before respondent no 1 seeking the direction to the respondent no 2 provide the information free of cost and to impose penalty under section 20 of the RTI act 2005.

II

08.08.2006 : Petitioner filed the second RTI application with the respondent no 2 seeking reasons for non payment of survey/ investigation fee to him. This application contained set of six questions seeking details of the same.
12.09.2006 : As the respondent no 2 did not reply to the application of the petitioner within statutory period of 30 days, as provided under section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, the petitioner filed the first appeal with the respondent no 3 seeking direction from him to the respondent no 2 to provide information for free. Under section 7(6) of the RTI Act 2005.
08.09.2006
(Received by petitioner on 13.09.2006) : The respondent no 2 informed the petitioner that his survey fee has been settled.
15.09.2007 : After receiving the reply from the respondent no 2 wrote a letter to the respondent no 3 in continuation of petitioner’s earlier appeal dated 12.09.2006 informing respondent no 3 that respondent no 2 has not provided the information sought by the petitioner.
03.10.2006 : Respondent no 3 replied again to the petitioner reiterating the statement of its earlier letter and again informed the petitioner that the information sought by the petitioner pertains to some vigilance enquiry and is of confidential in nature. Therefore the information cannot be provided.
16.10.2006 : Petitioner filed second appeal before respondent no 1 seeking direction against respondent no 2 to provide the information free of cost and also penalty be imposed under section 20 of the RTI act 2005.

III

14.08.2006 : Petitioner filed third RTI application before respondent no 2 requesting for copies of two office circulars issued delisting his name from the panel of surveyors. This application contained set of four requests in all seeking details of the same.
08.09.2006
(Received to petitioner on 13.09.2006) : The respondent no 2 informed the petitioner that the letters sought in the application of the petitioner dates back to 1998 and are not available. He further informed that even if these were available, these could not be provided as these are of confidential in nature.
15.09.2007 : Petitioner filed the first appeal to the respondent no 3 and sought its direction to the respondent no 2 to provide information free of cost as the respondent no 2 has rejected the information sought malafidely.
03.10.2006 : Respondent no 3 replied to the petitioner that the information sought by him is exempted under section 8(1) (d) (e) and (g) of the RTI act 2005.
16.10.2006 : Petitioner filed second appeal before respondent no 1 seeking the direction to the respondent no 2 provide the information free of cost and to impose penalty under section 20 of the RTI act 2005. All the three appeals filed by the petitioner were joined by respondent no 1 and the correspondences in all these three appeals were common.
24.11.2006 : The registry of respondent no 1 issued notice of hearing on all three appeals and fixed the date as 15th January 2007 for the hearing.
19.12.2006 : The respondent no 2 filed the comments before the respondent no 1 and sent a copy of the comments to the petitioner.
03.01.2007 : The Registry of the respondent no 1 informed the petitioner that the date of hearing has been rescheduled and fixed the new date of hearing as 12.02.2007
05.02.2007 : Petitioner filed the rejoinder before respondent no 1.
12.02.2007 : Respondent no 1 heard the matter and passed the order.
27.02.2007 : Aggrieved with the order of the respondent no 1, the petitioner filed an application before respondent no 1 to review of its order as respondent no 1 failed to take into consideration all the submissions of the petitioner.

HENCE THIS WRIT PETITION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 AND ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

AND

IN THE MATTER UNDER SECTIONS 6, 7, 18, 20(1) AND 20(2) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

AND

IN THE MATTER OF NON COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2007 OF RESPONDENT NO 1 BY THE RESPONDENT NOS. 2 AND 3

AND

IN THE MATTER OF NON CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL NOS CIC/MA/A 2006/00842, CIC/MA/A 2006/ 868 AND CIC/MA/A 2006/ 869 FILED BY PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT NO 1

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

S. Anoop Kumar
35-59/1, GK Colony,
Sainikpuri Post,
Secunderabad 500 094. … Petitioner

Versus

1. Central Information Commission,
4th & 5th Floor, Block No. IV,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi 110067

2. Public Information Officer
Deputy Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited.,
Hyderabad Regional Office,
United India Building,
Bashirbagh X Roads,
Hyderabad-500 029

3. Appellate Authority,
The Deputy General Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited.,
Head Office, 24, Whites Road,
Chennai 600 014 … Respondents

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and the other Companion Judges of
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH.

1. This is a petition preferred by the petitioner herein under the provisions of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of and/or seeking appropriate order(s) in the nature of Certiorari and that of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) for issuance of order(s), direction(s) to the respondent(s) herein directing them to provide the information(s) sought by the petitioner herein vide his application dated 08.08.2006 and 14.08.2006 under Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, 2005) and impose penalty on respondent no 2 and respondent no 3.

2. Petitioner is a licensed, independent and full time practicing senior insurance surveyor since 1986. He conducts insurance surveys and makes a report for insurance companies based on which they settle the claims of the insured. The petitioner had worked with United India Insurance Company Limited (UIIC LTD) at its Hyderabad Regional Office (HRO). During January 1999 petitioner’s name was unilaterally, without being given a hearing de-listed from the panel of surveyors of UIIC LTD on grounds of fraud by a client. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner neither an enquiry was conducted. Petitioner was also not given any opportunity to present his defence.

3. The respondent 1 is Central Information Commission. It is a statutory body constituted under the provision of section 12 of the RTI Act 2005. Respondent no 1 is responsible for, apart from hearing appeals from the order passed by the first appellate authority of the Public Information Officer, taking cognizance of complaints filed by persons who have been refused access to any information requested or who have not been given response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under the RTI Act 2005. Respondent no 1 is also vested with the same power as that of the civil court while trying suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 are public authority for the purposes of RTI Act, 2005.

4. The facts leading to the present case are as under:

a. Petitioner, while rendering his services as senior insurance surveyor of UIIC LTD. conducted an investigation with respect to some policies of Ravindranath Fruit Canning Industries (P) Limited and submitted the investigation report no. UTI/167/97-98 along with bill no 1298 dated 28.11.1997 of Rs 15,699.00 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) to the UIIC LTD. O n 28.11.1997. The bill was never cleared by UIIC LTD. alleging fraud by Ravindranath Fruit Canning Industries (P) Limited in lodging his claim. Petitioner sent a number of letters and reminders to the UIIC LTD., but he never received any response or reply from UIIC LTD.

b. Later, on .06.01.1999 UIIC LTD., unilaterally and without giving any notice or an opportunity of being heard to petitioner, de-listed petitioner from the panel of approved surveyors and investigators.

c. Meanwhile Ravindranath Fruit Canning Industries (P) Limited filed a claim before National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) as its insurance claim was not cleared by UIIC LTD..

d. Before NCDRC, the UIIC LTD. also filed two reports one of petitioner and other of another investigator Mr M V Subba Rao as evidence. NCDRC, in its final order dated 10.01.2006, relied on the report of the petitioner and directed UIIC LTD. to pay a sum of Rs. 36,29,967.00 along with interest @ of 10% per annum to Ravindranath Fruit Canning Industries (P) Limited. A cost of Rs. 1,00,000.00 was also imposed on UIIC LTD. A copy of the NCDRC order dated 10.01.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “I”.

e. Petitioner, subsequent to the order dated 10.01.2006 passed by NCDRC approached the UIIC LTD. for the settlement of his bills, but UIIC LTD. neither replied to the petitioner nor took any action to clear the bills of the petitioner.

f. Petitioner filed three different applications on 08.08.2006 and on 14.08.2006 under RTI Act 2005 seeking details regarding delisting of his name, non clearance of his bills and seeking copies of some circulars.

g. The facts related to the first application under RTI Act 2005 by the petitioner are as under:

i. In the first application under RTI Act, 2005 dated 08.08.2006 to the respondent no 2, the petitioner sought details with respect to delisting of his name from the panel of Insurance Surveyors and Investigators of UIIC LTD. In this application the applicant sought information on ten counts. The application of the petitioner is being reproduced herein for the sake of convenience of this court :-
“1. Reason for delisting of my name from the panel of surveyors.

2. Details of hard evidence against me leading to delisting my name from the panel of surveyors.

3. Names and designations with present place of work of various officers responsible for delisting my name from the panel of surveyors during 1999 and causing untold miseries and in destroying my personal reputation, honour and career (if retired, their last known residential address from the records, including pension & post retirement records).

4. Reasons for not following the basic principles of natural justice in issuing show cause notice, or calling for an explanation, and conducting an inquiry before delisting orders were issued and circulated to the DO’s and branches.

5. Reasons for not issuing/executing a copy of delisting order to me.

6. Post NCDRC judgment, which upheld the claim of the insured and directed payment of claim to the insured based on my report, which vindicates my report and my role in the subject case and clears all the doubts cast upon my personal conduct and professional integrity, how do the insurer’s justify their action in delisting my name from the panel of surveyors and destroying my career, my personal reputation & honour, and deprived me of my earning opportunities while I was at the age of 43 years. ?

7. Post NCDRC Judgment, what was the action taken on my representations dt 04/06-03-2006 addressed to various officials at Head Office Chennai & Hyderabad Regional Office, Hyderabad, including to grievance cell at HO & HRO, and to the various reminders sent and reasons for not taking any action so far?

8. Post NCDRC judgment, Insurer’s have paid an amount of Rs. 30,00,000.00 in excess over the assessed amount of Rs. 36,29,967.00 towards interest and cost to the insured, in addition to the other costs involved in defending the case. How do the insurer’s justify this excess out go of public funds which otherwise could have been saved? On which insurance officials do the insurer’s pinpoint the responsibility and what action has been taken against them?

9. If the insurer’s had any strong evidence to establish the fraud, then how did they lose the case before NCDRC? If they feel there was any error in the judgment delivered by the NCDRC, why did not they contest the case in the higher court rather than meekly paying up the claim amount with interest & costs?

10.The present status of my representations and reminders at HRO level and/or HO level and at the time frame for taking any action on my representation requesting for immediate reinstatement of my name in the panel of surveyors.”

The petitioner also sought inspection of complete claim files and legal files pertaining to the case filed by Ravindranath Fruit Canning Industries (P) Limited with all relevant files available at UIIC LTD.’ various offices along with file notings and inter office memos to be made available at UIIC LTD.’ Hyderabad Regional Office at a mutually convenient date within the time frame as prescribed in the RTI act. A copy of the RTI application dated 08.08.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “II”.

ii. Respondent no 2 did not reply to the application of the petitioner within stipulated time of 30 days as provided under section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, the petitioner filed the first appeal before respondent no 3 on 12.09.2006 also seeking a direction from the respondent no 3 to the respondent no 2 to provide the information free of cost under section 7(6) of the RTI Act 2005, as the respondent no 2 did not comply to the time limit as prescribed in the RTI Act for providing the information. A copy of the first appeal dated 12.09.2006 is annexed herwith as ANNEXURE “III”.

iii. Vide letter dated 13.09.2006, respondent no 2 informed petitioner that the information sought by petitioner cannot be furnished in view of the exemptions under section 8(1) (d) (e) (g) (h) of the RTI Act 2005. A copy of the letter dated 13.09.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “IV”.

iv. Petitioner, in response to the letter dated 13.09.2006 of respondent no 2 wrote a letter to the respondent no 3 on 21.09.2006 stating that none of the exemptions as mentioned by respondent no 2 are applicable to petitioner’s application as his queries in his application are related to his delisting from the panel of approved surveyors and investigators. A copy of the letter dated 21.09.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “V”.

v. Respondent no 3, vide its letter dated 18.09.2006, informed the petitioner that the information sought by him is exempted from disclosure in sections 8(1) (d) (e) (g) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 and therefore such information can not be disclosed to him. A copy of the letter dated 18.09.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “VI’.

vi. After receiving the letter of the petitioner dated 21.09.2006, respondent no 3 again wrote a letter to the petitioner on 03.10.2006 reiterating its earlier stand that the information sought is exempted from disclosure under sections 8(1) (d) (e) (g) (h) of the RTI Act 2005. A copy of the letter dated 03.10.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “VII”.

vii. Petitioner filed the second appeal before the respondent no 1 on 16.10.2006 challenging the decision of the respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 and sought the direction from the respondent no 1 for respondent no 2 to provide information to the petitioner free of cost. The petitioner also prayed the respondent no 1 to inquire into the matter under sections 18 (1) & (2) of the RTI Act 2005 and also impose penalties on respondent no 2 under section 20 (1) & (2) of the RTI Act 2005. Petitioner also sought the directions from the respondent no 1 to the respondent no 2 to compensate the petitioner an amount of Rs. 29,500.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the inconvenience and harassment caused by him, legal and other expenses incurred by him in dealing with this matter. A copy of Appeal DATED 16.10.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “VIII”.

viii. In the second application dated 08.08.2006 under RTI Act, 2005 filed by the petitioner before respondent no 2, the petitioner sought details with respect to non payment of the bills presented by the petitioner before the UIIC LTD.. The contents of the application are being reproduced herein for the sake of convenience.

1. Reasons for denying my payment even awhile the report was accepted and presented as official document before the Hon’ble NCDR Commission, New Delhi.

2. Reasons for not acting on my various representations/ reminders and complaints filed with various officials at DO, HRO & HO levels, including with grievance cells.

3. Post NCDRC Judgment, which upheld the claim of the insured based on my report, what was the action taken on my representations seeking the payment due addressed to various officials at head office, Chennai & Hyderabad Regional Office, Hyderabad, including to grievance cells at HO & HRO, and to the various reminders sent and reasons for not taking any action so far.

4. Names and designations with present place of work of various officers responsible for denying and depriving me of payment rightly due to me (if retired, their last known residential address from the records, including pension & post retirement records).

5. What is the action taken or proposed to be taken against the officials responsible for denying and depriving me the payment rightly due to me?

6. The present status of my representations and reminders at DO level or HRO level and at the time frame for releasing the payment rightly due to me with accrued interest till the date of actual payment to be made.”

A copy of the RTI application dated 08.08.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “IX”.

ix. As the respondent no 2 did not reply to the application of the petitioner within stipulated time of 30 days as provided in section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, the petitioner filed the first appeal to the respondent no 3 on 12.09.2006 asking for the direction from the respondent no 3 to the respondent no 2 to provide the information free of cost under section 7(6) of the RTI act 2005, as the respondent no 2 did not comply to the time limit as prescribed in the RTI Act for providing the information. A copy of first appeal dated 12.09.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “X”.

x. On 13.09.2006, the petitioner received a letter-dated 08.09.2006 from the respondent no 2 informing him that at the Divisional Office of UIIC LTD., Chittoor, all his survey fee has been settled. A copy letter dated 13.09.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XI”.

xi. On receiving the reply from the respondent no 2, petitioner in continuation to his appeal dated 12.09.2006 wrote a letter to respondent no 3 stating that the respondent no 2 has not provided entire information to him as sought in his RTI application dated 08.08.2006. Petitioner also sought the direction from the respondent no 3 to the respondent no 2 to provide the sought information for free. A copy of letter dated 15.09.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XII”.

xii. In response to the letter dated 13.09.2006 of petitioner, respondent no 3 vide a letter dated 03.10.2006 informed the petitioner that the information sought by him pertains to some matter related to vigilance enquiry and is confidential in nature; therefore the same can not be provided. A copy of this letter dated 03.10.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XIII”.

xiii. Petitioner filed second appeal before the respondent no 1 on 16.10.2006 challenging the decision of the respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 and sought the direction from the respondent no 1 for respondent no 2 to provide information to the petitioner. The petitioner prayed the respondent no 1 to impose penalties on respondent no 2 under section 20 (1) & (2) of the RTI Act 2005. Petitioner also sought the directions from the respondent no 1 to the respondent no 2 to compensate the petitioner an amount of Rs. 29,500.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the inconvenience and harassment caused by him, legal and other expenses incurred by him in dealing with this matter. A copy of the Appeal dated 16.10.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XIV”.

xiv. The petitioner filed a third application under the RTI Act, 2005 on 14.08.2006 before respondent no 2 seeking the certified copies of following two circulars of Hyderabad office of UIIC LTD.-
a. HRO:TCH:GENL:38/99 dt. 06.01.1999
b. HRO:TCH:GENL:39/99 dt. 07.01.1999

and also sought

1. Complete related and connected correspondences between various offices leading to generation and issue of above cited circulars, including reports, orders from UIIC LTD. vigilance department, even if they are confidential in nature.
2. Master file and register of HRO generator circulars for the period 01.04.1998 to 31.03.1999.
3. All dispatch and inward registers maintained at HRO of UIIC LTD. for the period between 01.04.1998 to 31.03.1999.

Petitioner requested for inspection of the above mentioned documents at Hyderabad Regional Office at a mutually convenient date within a time frame as prescribed in the RTI Act and also requested for provision of giving him certified copies of some or all of the documents after his perusal.

A copy of the above mentioned application dated 14.08.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XV”.

xv. Respondent no 2, vide a letter dated 08.09.2006, which was received on 13.09.2006 by the petitioner, informed the petitioner that the information sought by him is an old information and the same was not retained at the office. Therefore the same could not be provided to the petitioner. Respondent no 2 also informed that even if the information were with the UIIC LTD. the same could not be divulged on account of its confidentiality. A copy of the letter dated 08.09.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XVI”.

xvi. On receipt of the reply dated 08.09.2006 from respondent no 2, petitioner filed first appeal before respondent no 3 on 16.09.2006. The petitioner contented that respondent no. 2 has not provided information to him as sought in his RTI application dated 12.08.2006. Petitioner also sought the direction from the respondent no 3 to the respondent no 2 to provide the sought information for free A copy letter dated 16.09.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XVII”.

xvii. Respondent no 3 vide letter dated 03.10.2006 informed the petitioner that the information sought by him pertains to some matter related to vigilance enquiry and is confidential in nature; therefore the same can not be provided. Respondent no. 3 also informed that the internal communications and correspondences are exempted under sections 8 (1) (d) (e) and (g) of the RTI Act 2005. A copy of the letter dated 03.10.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XVIII”.

xviii. Petitioner filed the second appeal before the respondent no 1 on 16.10.2006 challenging the decision of the respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 and sought the direction from the respondent no 1 for respondent no 2 to provide information to the petitioner free of cost. The petitioner also prayed the respondent no 1 to inquire into the matter under sections 18 (1) & (2) of the RTI Act 2005 and also impose penalties on respondent no 2 under section 20 (1) & (2) of the RTI Act 2005. Petitioner also sought the directions from the respondent no 1 to the respondent no 2 to compensate the petitioner an amount of Rs. 29,500.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the inconvenience and harassment caused by him, legal and other expenses incurred by him in dealing with this matter. A copy of second appeal dated 16.10.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XIX”.

xix. Respondent no 1 clubbed all these appeals of the petitioner and issued a common notice dated 24.11.2006 of hearing to the respondent no 2. and directed respondent no 2 to file comments within 15 working days from the date of issue of this notice in all these three cases. Respondent no 1 fixed the date of hearing as 15.01.2007. A copy of the letter dated 24.11.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XX”.

xx. Respondent no 2 vide its letter dated 19.12.2006 filed its comments in all three cases before respondent no. 1 and reiterated the same reasons for not disclosing the information as in its earlier communication to the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 further informed that the matters related to the case of the petitioner is under vigilance enquiry and are confidential in nature, therefore, the same cannot be provided. Respondent no 2 also informed that some of the information have been obtained in fiduciary relation and therefore cannot be provided. A copy of the comments dated 19.12.2006 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE XXI.

xxi. Vide letter dated 03.01.2007 respondent no. 1 informed the petitioner about the postponement of hearing from 15.01.2007 to 12.02.2007 A copy of the letter dated 03.02.2007 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XXII”.

xxii. Petitioner filed a detailed rejoinder dated 05.02.2007 before respondent no 1. In this rejoinder the petitioner countered the submissions of the respondent no. 2 and informed the respondent no 1 that the information so sought is not covered under any exemptions under section 8 (1) of the RTI Act 2005. Petitioner also informed that the vigilance enquiry was initiated in 1997-98 and it was completed and the vigilance case has been closed. A copy of the rejoinder dated 05.02.2007 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XXIII”.

xxiv. Respondent no 1 heard the case on 12.02.2007 and passed the order on the same day. In the order the respondent no 1 took into account only the third application under RTI Act 2005 by the petitioner and ordered the respondent no 2 to provide the copies of the above mentioned circulars. Respondent no 1 also allowed the inspection of the files related to these circulars subject to section 10(1) of the RTI Act 2005. But no time limit was fixed for implementation of this order. Respondent no. 1 did not give any decision in all other matters pertaining to other two appeals of the petitioner A copy of the order dated 12.02.2007 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XXIV”.

xxv. Aggrieved with the order of the respondent no 1, the petitioner filed an application to the respondent no 1 on 27.02.2007 for the review of its order and explained the discrepancies, that the CIC did not take up and decide other two appeals and simply passed the order based on just one appeal. Petitioner requested the respondent no 1 to rehear the case and pass appropriate orders. Petitioner also requested the respondent no 1 to impose penalties on the respondent no 2 under section 20(1) & (2) of the RTI Act 2005 and also to order the respondent no 2 to compensate the expenses of Rs. 48,226.00 (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Six Only) incurred by the petitioner in connection to this case A copy of the application dated 27.02.2007 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XXV”.

xxvi. There has been no response from respondent no 1 to the petitioner on his request letter dated 27.02.2007.

xxvii. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner has no option except to approach this Hon’ble Court at this stage of the matter.

xxviii. It is submitted that in view of the facts and submissions stated hereinabove it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has done everything that he could under the RTI Act, 2005 and, therefore has a legal and valid right to claim the information from the respondent no. 1 and respondent no 2. Respondent no 1 and respondent no 2 being public servants are duty bound to consider and grant the information to the petitioner herein at the earliest possible in order to avoid any further loss and damage to the petitioner’s right to information.

xxix. It is submitted that despite separate appeals dated 16.1.02006 filed by petitioner to his RTI applications dated 08.08.2006 and 14.08.2006 respectively, respondent no. 1 did not consider them. Respondent no. 1 only took into account the facts and circumstances leading to the third application and ordered to provide the information in this application and failed to appreciate the other two appeals. Respondent no. 1 not only failed to take into account the facts and circumstances of the first two appeals, it also failed to impose penalty under section 20 of the RTI Act 2005 upon the respondent no. 2 for misusing the provisions of section 8 (1) of the RTI act 2005.

xxx. It is respectfully submitted that respondent no.2 and respondent no. 3 while replying to the petitioner’s applications under the RTI Act dated 08.08.2006, 08.08.2006 and 14.08.2006 invoked sections 8(1) (d) (e) (g) and (h). Relevant portions of section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 are being reproduced herein for the sake of convenience :-

“8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,—
a)*……………;
b)*……………;
c)*……………;
d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
e) 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;
f)*……………;
g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
i) *……………;
(j) * .”

xxxi. It is respectfully submitted that respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3, in their replies to the petitioner wrongly applied these provisions.

xxxii. It is respectfully submitted that under 8(1) (d) the information that is exempted is information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third party. In this case the information sought by petitioner is the reason for delisting the petitioner from the approved panel of surveyors. This information would not harm the competitive position of any third party. It is also respectfully submitted that the respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 failed to inform the petitioner who is the third party in this case and how the third party would be affected by divulging the information sought by the petitioner in his applications dated 08.06.2006 and 14.08.2006.

xxxiii. It is respectfully submitted that the information that is exempted under section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 is the information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. The information that was asked for by the petitioner does not fall in this exemption as the entire information relates to the petitioner’s case and he should have been provided a copy of the information in compliance of the principles of natural justice.

xxxiv. It is respectfully submitted that the information exempted under section 8(1) (g) of RTI Act, 2005 is the information disclosure of which would harm or endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. In this case, information sought by petitioner would neither harm, nor endanger the life or physical safety of any person; nor would it identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. The information sought by the petitioner is related to his own personal case of non payment petitioner’s professional fees by UIIC LTD. and the disclosure of the names and designation of the persons who were responsible for non payment to petitioner is lawful and in no possibility would affect physical safety or endanger life of any person.

xxxv. It is respectfully submitted that the exemption under section 8(1) (h) relates to information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. In this matter the vigilance enquiry was initiated in 1997-1998 and that was completed in 1998. As the investigation had been completed, the exemption under section 8(1) (h) does not lie. Assuming though not admitting the information as sought in this case, if there was any investigation pending, the petitioner should get a copy of the report as a matter of right for his defence. Not providing information would violate principles of natural justice.

xxxvi. It is respectfully submitted that petitioner in his appeal before respondent no 1 also stated the same but respondent no 1 failed to appreciate the submission of petitioner.

xxxvii. It is respectfully submitted that respondent no. 1 without applying his mind on the other two appeals of petitioner both dated 16-10-2006 decided all the three appeals in one decision. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no reference let alone any order / direction about the other two appeals in the impugned order dated 12-02-2007 of respondent no 1.

xxxviii. It is respectfully submitted that respondent no 1 should have imposed penalty under section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information that was sought by petitioner was not given to him, the reply that the petitioner received from respondent no 2 was given after expiry of statutory period of 30 days.

xxxix. It is respectfully submitted that section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 makes it mandatory for respondent no 1 to impose penalty and also to order for the departmental action against the official who persistently fails to provide information. Section 20 of the RTI Act is being reproduced herein for sake of convenience :-

“20. (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.”

xl. It is respectfully submitted that despite respondent no 1’s clear order dated 12.02.2007 to provide copies of the office circulars and also inspection of the office files and necessary copies of the same to the petitioner, respondent no 1 has only made available copies of 2 circulars and the file made available to the petitioner for his perusal only contained (1) Copies of insurance policies (2) Copy of his own investigation report & (3) NCDRC judgement copy. There was no other document in the file. Thus, the Respondent no. 2 violated the directions of the Respondent no. 1 so far making itself subject to Contempt of Court.

xli. It is submitted that section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 clearly states that penalty “shall” be imposed. Respondent no 1 does not have any discretion while imposing penalty. Respondent no 1 has to see, only, whether there was a “reasonable cause”, which prevented respondent no 2 to provide information within time.

xlii. It is submitted that under the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove, the petitioner has been left with no option and/or alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to file the present writ petition and seek appropriate relief(s) from this Hon’ble Court.

xliii. Delhi Right to Information Act 2001 also has a similar penalty provision. Mohammad Shamim, Justice, who is the Lokayukta of Delhi, observed the following in the case of Shri Ravinder Balwani Vs Shailja Chandra and others, while deciding Complaint No. C-9/ Lok /2005.
“This is well established principle of law that where the provisions of a statute are plain and clear and the legislator in their wisdom have given vent to their intent in unequivocal terms without any ambiguity, then the judges are under an obligation to interpret the same as it is without adding anything thereto and without subtracting anything therefrom. I am supported in my above view by the opinion expressed by Justice Krishna Iyer in a judgement of the Supreme Court. He opined “when the language is plainly limiting and means what it says teteology, dialectics and other tour deforce cannot be invoked to give a desired meaning beyond what the definitions ever contemplated. A law has to be interpreted as it is, not as it ought to be or as one wishes it to be. There is another side of the picture.

Information from the government has been likened to an oxygen for a democratic society, time and again. Thus the intent behind the passing of Information Act was to provide information to the citizen on being asked as it is considered an essential component of a democratic setup. Hence the legislatures in their wisdom made it obligatory on the part of the government to furnish the information once it is sought. In case of the failure to furnish the information a penalty was to be imposed under the Delhi Right to Information Act. Thus I feel a duty was cast on the shoulders of the appellate authority to recommend the penalty, in case the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the information was not furnished or information furnished was wrong or deficient.

In case no penalty is recommended, in that eventuality the defaulting officers would get emboldened and would not furnish the requisite information when asked for. Thus the intent of the legislature is unequivocal and clear. It goes to show that the recommendation for imposition of penalty is compulsory. It was in the above circumstances that the legislature used the words “shall take action against the defaulting officers concerned.”
A copy of this judgement is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XXVI”.

xliv. It is submitted that the office of the respondent no 1 is located in Delhi, and as such this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and grant relief(s) as sought for under this writ petition.

xlv. It is submitted that Annexures I to XXV as annexed to this writ petition are true copies of the originals.

xlvi. It is submitted that the petitioner herein reserve their right to further amend, supplement such other further facts and submissions as may be deemed fit and proper and necessary in the interests of justice during the course of the pendency of this writ petition before this Hon’ble Court.

xlvii. It is submitted that there is no equally effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner for relief as claimed and sought for in this writ petition.

xlviii. It is submitted that the petitioner has not filed any other similar petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court or before this Hon’ble Court or any other Courts in India pertaining to the subject matter in the present petition.

xlix. It is submitted that being seriously affected and aggrieved by the decision of the respondent no.1 with regard to the petitioner’s three application under RTI Act, 2005 dated 08.06.2006 and 14.06.2006 as stated hereinabove, the petitioner prefers this writ petition on following amongst other.

G R O U N D S

A. BECAUSE Respondent no 1 failed to take into account all, the three appeals of the petitioner and gave its decision in only one appeal despite the fact that it heard the matter together and disposed of all three appeals together.

B. BECAUSE respondent no 1 failed to appreciate that the petitioner has not been provided, till date, information by respondent no 2.

C. BECAUSE respondent no 1 failed to consider the written submissions dated 16.10.2006 and 05.02.2007 filed by the petitioner before deciding three appeals of the petitioner.

D. BECAUSE respondent no.1 failed to apply various powers vested in it by virtue of RTI Act, which empowers respondent no 1 to receive evidence on affidavit and examine witness and documents and is obliged to take all steps possible requiring discovery of documents.

E. BECAUSE respondent no 1 has a statutory duty under section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 to impose penalty on respondent no 2 and respondent no 1 failed to impose any monetary penalty on respondent no 2 for having failed to give the required information to the petitioner within stipulated time of 30 days.

F. BECAUSE section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 clearly states that penalty “shall” be imposed. Respondent no 1 does not have any discretion while imposing penalty. Respondent no 1 has to see, only, whether there was a “reasonable cause”, which prevented respondent no 2 to provide information within time.

G. BECAUSE respondent no 1 ignored to see that respondent no 2 failed to respond to all the three RTI applications dated 08. 08.2006 and 14.08.2006 of the petitioner and respondent no 1 condoned the conduct of respondent no 2, against which RTI Act, 2005 strictly lays down provision of penalty
H. BECAUSE respondent no 1 has not awarded any compensation to the petitioner for the loss or any detrement suffered though the petitioner has suffered severe inconvenience and hardships and also monetary expenditure which are explained in the second appeal and also in his application dated 27-02-2007 filed before the Respondent no. 1 to all the appeals filed by him. Respondent no. 1 has the powers to award such compensation as per the provisions of section 19 (8) (b) of RTI Act 2005.

I. BECAUSE despite being is vested with the powers of civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, call for production of documents or things or take evidence on oath, requisition any public record or copies thereof from any office, respondent no 1 failed to exercise any such power and as such it was the petitioner who suffered most.
PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take this Writ Petition into consideration and issue appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari and / or mandamus and / or such other writ(s) as may be deemed fit and proper to
a. direct respondent no 1 to rehear the appeals no. CIC/MA/A/2006/00 842, CIC/MA/A/2006/00868 & CIC/MA/A/2006/00869 of petitioner and pass appropriate orders in all three appeals filed before it, and
b. direct respondent no 1 to ensure compliance of the order dated 12.02.2007 passed by respondent no 1, and
c. direct respondent no 1 to impose penalty under section 20 of RTI Act, 2005 on respondent no 2 for their failure to provide information within statutory time limit, and
d. direct respondent no 1 to award compensation to the petitioner as per provisions laid down under section 19 (8) (b) of RTI Act 2005 for the loss and other detriments suffered as detailed in the review petition submitted with support documents, and

( ) pass such other further order(s), direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL EVERY AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.

Petitioner

Through
Advocate

New Delhi
Date: .04.2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF:

S. Anoop Kumar … Petitioner

Versus

1. Central Information Commission and ors … Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, S. Anoop Kumar, aged……., resident of 35-59/1, GK Colony, Sainikpuri Post, Secunderabad 500 094, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. That I am petitioner in the above petition and fully conversant with the facts of the case and hence fully competent to file the affidavit.

2. That the accompanying petition has been drafted by my counsel on my instructions and I have gone through the contents of the accompanying petition and contents therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed there from.

3. That the Annexures to the petition are true copies of their respective documents

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this the th day of March, 2007 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and also on the basis of information received and believed to be correct. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF:

S. Anoop Kumar … Petitioner

Versus

1. Central Information Commission and ors … Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, S. Anoop Kumar, aged……., resident of 35-59/1, GK Colony, Sainikpuri Post, Secunderabad 500 094, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. That I am petitioner in the above petition and fully conversant with the facts of the case and hence fully competent to file the affidavit.

2. That the accompanying application has been drafted by my counsel on my instructions and I have gone through the contents of the accompanying application and contents therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this the th day of March, 2007 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and also on the basis of information received and believed to be correct. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

( ) pass such other further order(s), direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Petitioner

Through
(Ratika Mehrotra)
Advocate
E-109, Pandav Nagar (Ground Floor)
New Delhi 110092

New Delhi
Date: .04.2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF:

S. Anoop Kumar … Petitioner

Versus

1. Central Information Commission and ors … Respondents

I N D E X
S.NO Particulars Court Fee Page no
1. Notice of Motion A
2. Urgent Application B
3. Memo of Parties C
4. List of Dates and Events D- H
5. Writ Petition alongwith Affidavit 1-28
6. ANNEXURE “I”
Copy of the NCDRC order
dated 10.01.2006 29-62

7. ANNEXURE “II”
Copy of the RTI application
dated 08.08.2006 63-66

8. ANNEXURE “III”
Copy of the first appeal
dated 12.09.2006 67-68

9. ANNEXURE “IV”
Copy of the letter dated 13.09.2006 69

10. ANNEXURE “V”
Copy of the letter dated 21.09.2006 70-72

11. ANNEXURE “VI”
Copy of the letter dated 18.09.2006 73

12. ANNEXURE “VII”
Copy of the letter dated 03.10.2006 74

13. ANNEXURE “VIII”
Copy of Appeal dated 16.10.2006 75-85

14. ANNEXURE “IX”
Copy of the RTI application 86-88
dated 08.08.2006

15. ANNEXURE “X”
Copy of first appeal dated 12.09.2006 89-90

16. ANNEXURE “XI”
Copy letter dated 13.09.2006 91-92

17. ANNEXURE “XII”
Copy of letter-dated 15.09.2006 93-94

18. ANNEXURE “XIII”
Copy of this letter dated 03.10.2006 95

19. ANNEXURE “XIV”
Copy of the Appeal dated
16.10.2006 96-102

20. ANNEXURE “XV”
Copy of the application dated
14.08.2006 103-104

21. ANNEXURE “XVI”
Copy of the letter dated 08.09.2006 105-106

22. ANNEXURE “XVII”
Copy letter dated 16.09.2006 107-108

23. ANNEXURE “XVIII”
Copy of the letter dated
03.10.2006 109

24. ANNEXURE “XIX”
Copy of second appeal dated
16.10.2006 110-118

25. ANNEXURE “XX”
Copy of the letter dated
24.11.2006 119

26. ANNEXURE “XXI”
Copy of the comments dated
19.12.2006 120-123

27. ANNEXURE “XXII”
Copy of the letter dated 03.02.2007 124

28. ANNEXURE “XXIII”
Copy of the rejoinder dated
05.02.2007 125-126

29. ANNEXURE “XXIV”
Copy of the order dated
12.02.2007 127-127A

30. ANNEXURE “XXV”
Copy of the application dated
27.02.2007 128-131

31. ANNEXURE “XXVI”
A copy of Lokayukta’s judgement 132-141

32. Vakalatnama 142

Ratika Mehrotra
(Advocate)
E-109, Pandav Nagar (Ground Floor),
New Delhi 110092
NEW DELHI
DATE 22.05.2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF:

S. Anoop Kumar … Petitioner

Versus
1. Central Information Commission and ors … Respondents

MEMO OF PARTIES

S. Anoop Kumar
35-59/1, GK Colony,
Sainikpuri Post,
Secunderabad 500 094. … Petitioner

Versus
1. Central Information Commission,
4th & 5th Floor, Block No. IV,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi 110067

2. Public Information Officer
Deputy Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited.,
Hyderabad Regional Office,
United India Building,
Bashirbagh X Roads,
Hyderabad-500 029

3. Appellate Authority,
The Deputy General Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited.,
Head Office, 24, Whites Road,
Chennai 600 014 … Respondents

(Advocate)
DATE 22.05.2007