Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 95 (MAD)

N. Amirthaguru v. Deputy General Manager

2013-01-04

K.CHANDRU

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to furnish a copy of the leave letters dated 14.02.1995, 22.02.1995, 15.03.1995, 30.04.1995 and 19.09.1995. 2. When the matter came up on 03.01.2013, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the matter came to be posted today. 3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was working as a Pigmy Agent in the respondent Bank at Vellore Branch. The petitioner through his counsel sent a notice to Public Information Officer and Deputy General Manager at Chennai dated 31.10.2011, seeking for copies of the leave letters referred to above. The Public Information Officer by his reply dated 10.12.2011 informed the petitioner that the counsel being a third party, such information cannot be furnished and they are exempted from the disclosure of such information under Section 8(1)(d)&(j) of RTI, Act 2005. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority seeking for copies of the said letters. The Appellate Authority viz., the General Manager (P & L), by his reply dated 23.01.2012 informed the petitioner that the letters requested by him are not available in the records and hence, non-available information cannot be furnished. 5. The petitioner preferred a further appeal before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, challenging the order of the Information Officer as well as the Appellate Authority. The Central Information Commission after notice to the respondent Bank passed another that information sought for by the petitioner was not available in the records of the Public Authority. 6. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order of the Central Information Commission. On the other hand has filed the present writ petition as if this Court should give direction to the respondents to furnish the copy of the leave letters, which were given by the petitioner 18 years ago. Since the petitioner has taken recourse to Right to Information Act and lost before the Central Information Commission, the only question to be considered is whether the order of the Central Information Commission is in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act. This Court do not have any extra power that what has been conferred under the Right to Information Act. 7. This Court do not have any extra power that what has been conferred under the Right to Information Act. 7. Section 8(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, reads as follows:- "(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a),(c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. " 8. Section 8(3) of the RTI Act came to be considered by the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497 . In paragraphs 54 to 58, the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "54. The right to access information does not extend beyond the period during which the examining body is expected to retain the answer books. In the case of CBSE, the answer books are required to be maintained for a period of three months and thereafter they are liable to be disposed of/destroyed. Some other examining bodies are required to keep the answer books for a period of six months. The fact that right to information is available in regard to answer books does not mean that answer books will have to be maintained for any longer period than required under the rules and regulations of the public authority. The obligation under the RTI Act is to make available or give access to existing information or information which is expected to be preserved or maintained. 55. If the rules and regulations governing the functioning of the respective public authority require preservation of the information for only a limited period, the applicant for information will be entitled to such information only if he seeks the information when it is available with the public authority. 55. If the rules and regulations governing the functioning of the respective public authority require preservation of the information for only a limited period, the applicant for information will be entitled to such information only if he seeks the information when it is available with the public authority. For example, with reference to answer books, if an examinee makes an application to CBSE for inspection or grant of certified copies beyond three months (or six months or such other period prescribed for preservation of the records in regard to other examining bodies) from the date of declaration of results, the application could be rejected on the ground that such information is not available. The power of the Information Commission under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act to require a public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provision of the Act, does not include a power to direct the public authority to preserve the information, for any period larger than what is provided under the rules and regulations of the public authority. 56. On behalf of the respondent examinees, it was contended that having regard to subsection (3) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, there is an implied duty on the part of every public authority to maintain the information for a minimum period of twenty years and make it available whenever an application was made in that behalf. This contention is based on a complete misreading and misunderstanding of Section 8(3). The said subsection nowhere provides that records or information have to be maintained for a period of twenty years. The period for which any particular record or information has to be maintained would depend upon the relevant statutory rule or regulation of the public authority relating to the preservation of records. 57. Section 8(3) provides that information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place and occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6, shall be provided to any person making a request. 57. Section 8(3) provides that information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place and occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6, shall be provided to any person making a request. This means that where any information required to be maintained and preserved for a period beyond twenty years under the rules of the public authority, is exempted from disclosure under any of the provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, then, notwithstanding such exemption, access to such information shall have to be provided by disclosure thereof, after a period of twenty years except where they relate to information falling under clauses (a), (c) and (i) of Section 8(1). 58. In other words, Section 8(3) provides that any protection against disclosure that may be available, under clauses (b), (d) to (h) and (j) of Section 8(1) will cease to be available after twenty years in regard to records which are required to be preserved for more than twenty years. Where any record or information is required to be destroyed under the rules and regulations of a public authority prior to twenty years, Section 8(3) will not prevent destruction in accordance with the rules. Section 8(3) of the RTI Act is not therefore a provision requiring all “information” to be preserved and maintained for twenty years or more, nor does it override any rules or regulations governing the period for which the record, document or information is required to be preserved by any public authority." (Emphasis added) 9. In the light of the above legal precedent and the Central Information Commission having satisfied with the explanation offered by the Syndicate Bank that such records are maintained only for a period of five years and the petitioner having sought for such information after a period of 17 years, the present writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.