Information under rti Act can be given after reconstruction of record

It is not in dispute that the petitioner-appellant
originally by moving the application under the Right To
Information Act and Rules, sought information and in
appeal it was ordered that record which according to
appellant was not traceable be reconstituted and then
information be given. It may be true that the record may
have traveled from Kolkata to Patna and then to Jharkhand
and it is also true that record is pertaining to the files of
the year 1992. But, in a case where the information is
sought from a department and the department is required
to keep the record and was not entitled to weed-out that
part of the record from which the information was sought,
then the authority certainly can direct to give the
information to the applicant, if he is otherwise found
entitled to the relief under the Act and Rules referred above and in that process if record is required to be
reconstituted then, that is certainly within the jurisdiction
of the authorities under the Right To Information Act to
direct the office to reconstitute the record, which process
is also a step taken in furnishing the information to the
applicant. Otherwise also the appellant should not have
raised any grievance against such direction because it was
a duty of the appellant to immediately make effort for
reconstitution of the record when they came to know that
record is not lying with them and for that purpose, they
could have taken help even from the applicant by
obtaining certain information or also the requisite
documents from the party to whom the original record was
related to.
4. Be that as it may be, the direction to
reconstitute the record is only a one step in furtherance of
providing the information to the applicant under the Right
To Information Act. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
-----------
L.P.A. No. 543 of 2009
 ------
The Commissioner (Appeal) of Central
Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi ...… .........Appellant
--Versus--
Information Commissioner, Central
Information Commission, New Delhi & Anr....... Respondents
-------------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY

Order No.13 Dated 11th July, 2011

Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. The grievance of the appellant is that in a
proceeding under the Right To Information Act, the
authorities could not have directed for re-constitution of
the records and then give the information to the applicant.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-appellant
originally by moving the application under the Right To
Information Act and Rules, sought information and in
appeal it was ordered that record which according to
appellant was not traceable be reconstituted and then
information be given. It may be true that the record may
have traveled from Kolkata to Patna and then to Jharkhand
and it is also true that record is pertaining to the files of
the year 1992. But, in a case where the information is
sought from a department and the department is required
to keep the record and was not entitled to weed-out that
part of the record from which the information was sought,
then the authority certainly can direct to give the
information to the applicant, if he is otherwise found
entitled to the relief under the Act and Rules referredabove and in that process if record is required to be
reconstituted then, that is certainly within the jurisdiction
of the authorities under the Right To Information Act to
direct the office to reconstitute the record, which process
is also a step taken in furnishing the information to the
applicant. Otherwise also the appellant should not have
raised any grievance against such direction because it was
a duty of the appellant to immediately make effort for
reconstitution of the record when they came to know that
record is not lying with them and for that purpose, they
could have taken help even from the applicant by
obtaining certain information or also the requisite
documents from the party to whom the original record was
related to.
4. Be that as it may be, the direction to
reconstitute the record is only a one step in furtherance of
providing the information to the applicant under the Right
To Information Act. 
5. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right
in dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant.
We do not find any illegality in the said order, and hence,
we do not find any merit in this L.P.A., which is
accordingly, dismissed. 
6. It is made clear that the respondent should
also co-operate with the department in getting the record
reconstituted, and therefore, in that process, certainly
some more time may be consumed , but it should be a
reasonable time. 
 (Prakash Tatia, A.C.J.)
 (Jaya Roy, J.)
Biswas/SI

Print Page