CENTRALINFORMATIONCOMMISSION

(RoomNo.315,BWing,AugustKrantiBhawan,BhikajiCamaPlace,NewDelhi110066)

FileNo.CIC/SS/A/2013/002209SA

Appellant

Respondent

Mr.SubhashChandAgrawal

DepartmentofLegalAffairs
GovernmentofIndia

Dateofhearing

30102014

Dateofdecision

24112014

InformationCommissioner :

Prof.M.SridharAcharyulu
(MadabhushiSridhar)

ReferredSections

Sections3,19(3)oftheRTI

Act
Result

Appealallowed/
Disposedof

Theappellantispresent.ThePublicAuthorityisnotrepresentedbyMr.K.Ginkhan
Thang,CPIO,DepartmentofLegalAffairs,Govt.ofIndia,NewDelhi.
FACTS:

2.TheappellantfiledRTIapplicationon6.2.2013seekingfollowinginformationwithregard
tonewsreportUPALosesanotherSGasNarimanquits,Rajamadechangesin2Gpress

CIC/SS/A/2013/002209SA

Page1

notesaysAG,letterdt29.2.2013fromofficeofAttorneyGeneralandsubmissionsAttorney
Generalbefore2GJPCdt5.2.2013routedthroughPGPortal:
1. Completeinformationtogetherwithrelatedfilenoting/documents/correspondenceon
appointmentofShriGEVahanvati,ShriGopalSubramaniumandRohintonNarimanis
SolicitorGeneralincludingcopiesofnotificationsissuedinthisregard.
2. CopiesofresignationofShriGopalSubramaniumandShriRohintonNarimanfromthe
postofSolicitorGeneraltogetherwithcompleteinformationonactiontakenonthese
resignations,togetherwithrelatedfilenoting/documents/correspondence.
3. Completeinformationtogetherwithrelatedfilenoting/documents/correspondenceon
actiontakenforappointinganewSolicitorgeneraltoreplaceShriRohintonNariman.
4. Completeinformationtogetherwithrelatedfilenoting/documents/correspondenceon
appointmentofShriGEVahanvatiasAttorneyGeneralincludingalsocopyofnotification
onsuchappointment.
5. Completeinformationoffacilities,perks,privilages,officepremises,staffandallother
aspectsinvolvinggovernmentexpendituresanctioned/providedforLawOfficersof
GovernementofIndiaincludingalsoAttorneyGeneral,SolicitorGeneral,Add.Solicitor
GeneralsseparatelyforeachofsuchLawOfficers.
6. CompletedetailsofstaffwithnamesanddesignationsmadeavailabletoAttorneyGeneral
ShriGEVhanvatimentioningalsoexpensesmadeunderdifferentheadsincludingperks,
payandfacilitiesetcforAttorneyGeneralShriGEVahanvatiseparatelyforeachyearever
sincehetookchargeasAttorneyGeneral.
7. CompleteinformationofanycomplaintreceivedagainstanyoftheexistingLawOfficersof
GovernmentofIndiatogetherwithactiontakentogetherwithrelated

CIC/SS/A/2013/002209SA

Page2

correspondence/document/filenotingsonactiontakenonsuchcomplaintsenclosingalso
copiesofallsuchcomplaints.
8. CompleteinformationonanyexistingLawOfficerofGovernmentofIndiahavingviolated
LawOfficer(ServiceConditions)Rules1972togetherwithinformationonactiontakenn
suchviolationofruleswithrelatedcorrespondence/filenoting/documents.
9. Copyofanyproposal/referencebyUnionMinistryofLawandJusticeforAttorneyGeneral
GEVahanvatitotakepartindiscussionprocessand/ordraftingpressnotesetcinrespect
ofallocationof2GSpectrumasmandatoryunderrule8(e)ofLawOfficer(Service
Conditions)Rules1972.
10. Ifnotoquery(9),completeinformationonactiontakenagainstAttorneyGeneralGE
Vahanvatiforviolatingrule8(e)ofLawOfficer(ServiceConditions)Rules1972.Through
histakingpartindiscussionprocessand/ordraftingpressnoteinrespectofallocationof
2GSpectrum.
11. Completeinformationonactiontakentogetherwithrelatedfilenoting/
documents/correspondenceonsubmissionAttorneyGeneralbefore2GJPCdt5.2.2013
routedthroughPGportaleitherbydepartmentoflegalaffairsorconcernedoneswhere
thesesubmissionsmighthavebeenforwarded.
12.

FilenotingonthemomentofRTIpetition.

3. PIOvideorderdt11.4.2013repliedonpointno.14thatthecopiesoffile
noting, correspondence and other document relating to Law Officers would be
bulkyandwouldrequirediversionofconsiderableresourcesoftheirsectionand
theappellantwasrequestedtoprovidespecificnameofLawOfficeraboutwhom
hewantedinformation.Copiesofnotificationinrespecttoappointment/resignation
CIC/SS/A/2013/002209SA

Page3

ofAG/SGsandfewASGswereenclosed.Onpointno.5,itwasrepliedthatthe
rules regulating the facilities, perk, privileges etc are available in Law Officer
(ConditionandServiceRules)1987(linkprovided);onpointno6&12provided
enclosures;onpointno7requestedtheappellanttoprovidethespecificnameof
LawOfficer andonpointno811repliedthatnoinformationwasavailablein
JudicialSection.
4.Beingunsatisfied,theappellantpreferredFirstAppealon20.4.2013.FAAvide
order dt 10.9.2013 rejected the appeal saying that information has already been
provided.TheappellantpreferredSecondAppealbeforetheCommission.

Decision:

5.Boththepartiesmadetheirsubmissions. TheCommissionhasgonepointwiseinthe
RTIapplicationoftheappellantandobservesthattherespondentauthorityinvokedSection
7(9)oftheRTIActregardingpoints1to4,asthatthedocumentsarebulkyinnatureand
involvediversionoftheresources.ThesaidSectionreadsthus:
7.Disposalofrequest
....
....
(9)Aninformationshallordinarilybeprovidedintheforminwhichitis
sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public
authorityorwouldbedetrimentaltothesafetyorpreservationoftherecordin
question.

CIC/SS/A/2013/002209SA

Page4

6.TheHighCourtofKeralaatErnakulaminthecaseofTreesaIrishW/oMiltonLopez
Vs. The Central Public Information Officer, The Appellate Authority, The Central
InformationCommissionandUnionofIndia (UOI),W.P.(C)No.6532of2006(C)dt
30.08.2010heldthat:
25.ThatSectiondoesnotevenconferanydiscretiononapublicauthorityto
withhold information, let alone any exemption from disclosure. It only gives
discretiontothepublicauthoritytoprovidetheinformationinaformotherthanthe
forminwhichtheinformationissoughtfor,iftheforminwhichitissoughtforwould
disproportionatelydiverttheresourcesofthepublicauthority.Infactthereisno
provision in the Act to deny information on the ground that the supply of the
informationwoulddisproportionatelydiverttheresourcesofthepublicauthority.

Inthelightoftheaboveclarification,theCommissiondoesnotacceptthiscontentionofthe
respondent and directs the PIO to provide copies of file notings subject to provisions of
Section8oftheRTIAct.

7.Regardingpoints7and8,aftertheappellantspecifiedthenamesofAttorneyGeneral,
SolicitorGeneralandAdditionalSolicitorGeneral,therespondentansweredthatuntil2013,
therewerenocomplaintsagainstthem.

8.AfterhavingperusedallthepointsintheRTIapplication,theCommissionfoundthatthe
informationsoughtinpoint9,10,11and12needtobeprovidedtotheappellantpertainingto
theproposal/referencetoAttorneyGeneralGEVahanvatitotakepartin2Gspectrumcase,
ifthereisnosuchproposal, thensoughttoknow action takenagainsthimforalleged
violationof rule8(e)ofLawOfficer(ServiceConditions)Rules1972,(insertedon25

February2005),whichprovidedthat:
CIC/SS/A/2013/002209SA

Page5

8.Restrictions(1)ALawOfficershallnot
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e) Advise any Ministry or Department of Government of India or any
statutoryorganizationoranyPublicSectorUndertakingunlesstheproposal
orareferenceinthisregardisreceivedthroughtheMinistryofLawand
Justice,DepartmentofLegalAffairs.
Taking into consideration the credential nature of the matter the Commission directs the
respondentauthoritytoprovideinformationassoughtunderpoints9,10,11and12ason
date,subjecttoSection8oftheRTIapplicationwithin15daysfromthedateofreceiptofthis
order.

9. TheCommissionobservesthatmostofthetimes,thedelayinresponsewasdueto
certainpersistentdoubtsexistinginthemindoftherespondentofficers. TheCommission
recommendsthePIOtocontacttheappellant/RTIapplicantonphoneandseekclarificationif
requiredandprovidetheinformationavoidingunnecessarydelayscompellingthepartiesto
goinappeals.

10.Withtheaboveobservations,theappealisdisposedof.

(M.SridharAcharyulu)
InformationCommissioner

CIC/SS/A/2013/002209SA

Page6

Authenticatedtruecopy

(BabuLal)
DeputyRegistrar

Addressoftheparties:
1. TheCPIO,GovernmentofIndia
DepartmentofLegalAffairs,MinistryofLawandJustice,
ShastriBhawan,NewDelhi110001

2. ShriSubhashChandraAgrawal
1775,KuchaLattushah,DaribaChandniChowk,Delhi

CIC/SS/A/2013/002209SA

Page7