Central Information CommissionRadhe Shyam Jangid vs High Court Of Other States on 15 February, 2021के   ीयसूचनाआयोग\n                       Central Information Commission\n                             बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका\n                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                         नई द ली,\n                         नई द ली New Delhi - 110067\n\nि तीय अपील सं या   / Second Appeal No. CIC/HCOST/A/2018/156230\n\nShri Radhe Shyam Jangid                                            ...   अपीलकता /Appellant\n                                     VERSUS/बनाम\n\nPIO                                                           ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent\nRajasthan High Court Jaipur\n\nDate of Hearing                           :    09.02.2021\nDate of Decision                          :    15.02.2021\nChief Information Commissioner            :    Shri Y. K. Sinha\n\nRelevant facts emerging from appeal:\n\nRTI application filed on                   :   04.04.2018\nPIO replied on                             :   -\nFirst Appeal filed on                      :   10.05.2018\nFirst Appellate Order on                   :   -\n2ndAppeal/complaint received on            :   12.09.2018\n\nInformation soughtand background of the case:The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.04.2018 seeking following\ninformation on 04 points:-1. 16710 पर राज थान के यालाय म केस चल रहा है सन 2012. इसके बाद म 2018 को सीता\n          दे वी बैरवा w/o िजते द बैरवा के आंगन बाड़ी काय$कता$ पद पोि टं ग दे ने कारण बताओ|2. केस 16710 कब फाइल हुआ उसक, फोटो को भी भेज|े3. सन 2012 से सन 2018 तक क, .या .या काय$वाह/ क, उसक, फोटो कॉपी भेज|े4. 1दनाँक 03.09.2012 क, 3ाम सभा म मे4बर के सामने 5कसी का 6नण$य नह/ं 7लया था उसक,\n           म8 दस मे4बर9 के ह ता:रो क, फोटो कॉपी भेजता हू| तो अपने इसके बारे म .या   याय 1दया है\n           उसक, =6त भेजे|\n\nHaving not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First\nAppeal dated 10.05.2018 which remained unheard.Feeling aggrieved over non receipt of information, the Appellant approached the\nCommission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 1 of 3Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic,\nCOVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the\nparties.The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.The Respondent is represented by Shri Vishal Meghwal, Advocate and Shri Gauri\nShankar Sharma, Registrar, Rajasthan High Court through video conference. Shri\nMeghwal referred to their written submission dated 04.02.2021 wherein it was\nstated that as per their record they did not receive either of the RTI applications\ndated 22.02.2018 and 04.04.2018, the second one being part of the present\nsecond appeal. The Appeal dated 10.05.2018 was filed with the heading "Jaipur\nVikas Pradhikaran, Jaipur" addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Rajasthan\nHigh Court. As per the provisions of the Rajasthan Right to Information (High\nCourt and Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006, it was found that the said appeal\nwas not in the prescribed form G, D or E and was not presented with the memo of\nAppeal and the requisite fees to file the appeal. In view of the deficiencies, the\nrecord relating to the file of the Appellant was not called from SPIO and the\nAppellant was called for personal hearing on 12.06.2018. The FAA vide order\ndated 20.06.2018 noted that the Appeal did not comply with the Rajasthan Right\nto Information (High Court and Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006.Decision:Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the\nRespondent and in the light of the fact that neither was the Appellant present\nduring the hearing nor did he raise any contention regarding the action taken by\nthe Respondent in his second appeal, no further intervention of the Commission\nis required on his Second Appeal. Nonetheless on closer perusal of the Rajasthan\nRight to Information (High Court and Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006, the\nCommission observes that Rule 7 (1) (b) of the Rules stipulates that for the\npurpose of filing of a first appeal, a fee of Rs. 100/- has to be deposited by the\nAppellant in the form of non-judicial adhesive stamp duly affixed or through\nDemand Draft/ Banker's Cheque in the name of the Appellate Authority.The Commission notes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of charging\nof exorbitant fee for filing of RTI applications prescribed that as a normal rule the\ncharge for application underRTI Actshould not be more than Rs. 50/-. The\nrelevant extract of the decision inCommon Cause vs HighCourt of Allahabad and\nAnr WP (Civil) No 194 of 2012 decided on 20.03.2018 isas under:"We are of the view that, as a normal Rule, the charge for the application\n       should not be more than Rs.50/- and for per page information should not be\n       more than Rs.5/-. However, exceptional situations may be dealt with\n       differently. This will not debar revision in future, if situation so demands."Although the issue of charging fee for admitting first appeals as per the sub-\nordinate rules was not under consideration in the above matter, it is worthwhile\nto consider that even for filing of RTI applications, the Apex Court prescribed aPage 2 of 3maximum fee of Rs 50/- whereas in the present instance a fee of Rs. 100/- is\ncharged from Appellants.On closer examination of theRTI Act, 2005it is evident that there is no enabling\nprovision in the principal Act i.e.,RTI Act, 2005for Rajasthan High Court to\ncollect fees while admitting first appeals. UnlikeSection 6(1)which clearly\nprovides for collection of an application fee there is no mention of any fee payment\ninSection 19of the principal Act which relates to filing of first and second\nappeals. Similarly,Section 28(2)which empowers the Rajasthan High Court to\nnotify Rules for implementing the principal Act also makes no reference to\ncollection of fees at the first appeal stage. Clearly, Parliament's intention was to\nmake provisions for fee payment only at the application and information\ndisclosure stage and not at the appeals stage. Given this scheme of fee payment\nin the principal Act, the general power of rule-making given inSection 28(1)of the\nprincipal Act should not be invoked to impose a new kind of fee on the applicant\nwhich is not provided in theRTI Act, 2005.Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inState of UP & Ors vs Renusagar\nPower Co and Ors1988 AIR 1737 decided on 28.07.1988 held as follows:"If the exercise of power is in the nature of subordinate legislation, the\n        exercise must conform to the provisions of the statute. All the conditions of\n        the statute must be fulfilled."A perusal ofSection 19of the RTI Act, 2005 indicates that there is no provision\nfor depositing fee for filing First Appeals before the concerned Public Authority.\nHence, Rule 7 (1) (b) of the Rajasthan Right to Information (High Court and\nSubordinate Courts) Rules, 2006 as amended upto 24.07.2020 clearly appears to\nbe in contravention of the parent statute. Therefore, in exercise of its powers\nunderSection 25 (5)of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission recommends to the\nRegistrar, Rajasthan High Court to put up the instant decision before the\ncompetent authority to take a considered view regarding amending the Rajasthan\nRight to Information (High Court and Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006 in view of\nthe abovementioned observations.With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off\naccordingly.Y. K. Sinha (वाई.वाई. के . िस हा)\n                                    Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )\n\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित)\n\nS. K. Chitkara (एस. के. Aचटकारा)\nDy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)\n011-26186535Page 3 of 3