Whether any person can obtain copy of note sheet prepared by public authority in relation to case pending in court?

The appellant's plea in the present case is for non-furnishing of note-sheets in relation to the Writ Petition filed by the appellant before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. The Commission finds merit in the arguments raised by the respondent in para 4.4 of his written submissions wherein it has been stated that the discussions of the file note-sheets of the files relating to the said matter contains information relating to internal deliberations towards recourse to be taken before the Court and advice/opinion from legal sources/bodies. The respondent has taken the plea of Section 8(1)(e) and Section 11 of the RTI Act with regard to the said note-sheets containing advice tendered by Law Officers. The respondent also relied on Section 129 of the Evidence Act in para 4.4 of his submissions. Moreover, the Commission finds no reason to differ from the previous Full Bench decision in file No,. CIC/AT/C/2008/00025 dated 27.7.2009 in Milap Choraria Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes. The CIC has held that "Their reference to the violation of the norms of equity in allowing the very person, who seeks to drag the public authority to court, all information about how the public authority wishes defend itself is also quite convincing." The Commission hereby holds that the appellant is not entitled to the said note-sheets in relation to the case filed by the appellant in the Hon'ble High Court, in view of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
NEW DELHI

Case Nos. CIC/SM/A/2013/000860-SS, CIC/SM/C/2013/000452/SS and CIC/DS/C/2013/000596/SS

Decided On: 15.05.2014

Appellants: Dr. Nutan Thakur
Vs.
Respondent: Prime Minister's Office

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sushma Singh, Chief Information Commissioner

Subject: Right to Information

1. The Commission vide is Interim Order in Case No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000860-SS dated 11.3.2014 and in Case Nos. CIC/SM/C/2013/000452/SS & CIC/DS/C/2013/000596/SS dated 19.3.2014 directed the CPIO to file written submissions before the Commission in the matter within ten days and also send copy of his submissions to the appellant for her to file a rejoinder, if any within ten days of receipt of the written submissions from the CPIO.

2. In compliance with aforementioned Interim Order of the Shri S.E. Rizwi, Deputy Secretary//722/2013-PMR, RTI/776/2013-PMR and RTI/2253/2013-PMR dated 3.4.2014 filed his written submissions, which is reproduced below:

Case No. CIC/DS/C/2013/000596/SS and No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000860/SS

(i) Smt. Nutan Thakur (hereinafter referred to as appellant) made an RTI application No. NT/RTI-PMO/01 dated 06.02.2013, received on 09.02.2013(Annexure A). While referring to a Writ Petition No. 8596/2012(M/B) filed by her before Allahabad High Court, Lucknow, she sought the following information-

(1) When was the Writ Petition received by your office?

(2) What action was taken by your office in this regards?

(3) Who/which ministry has this matter been referred to?

(4) Has any subsequent action been taken by your office on receipt of this Writ Petition?

(5) Kindly provide all the copies of the Note sheet of the file opened in your office as regards this matter.

(ii) CPIO, PMO, on the basis of inputs provided by the office, vide letter No. RTI/722/2013-PMR dated 01.3.2013(Annexure B), provided the following response to the applicant:

Point no.	Response
1	Writ Petition No. NIL(M/B) PIL, 2012 from Dr. Nutan Thakur vs. Union of India was received in this office on 12.10.2012.
2 & 3	The copy of the Writ Petition No. NIL(M/B) PIL, 2012 from Dr. Nutan Thakur vs. Union of India was forwarded to Law Secretary.
4 & 5	The matter is sub-judice

(iii) Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 6.3.2013 (Annexure C), against the response [point no. (4) & (5) above] stating that the "nowhere in RTI Act sub-judice information has been denied".

(iv) The appellate authority, PMO, vide letter dated 08.4.2013 (Annexure D), disposed the appeal, inter alia, with following observations/findings-

5. On perusal, it is noted that as per point no. 4 & 5, information sought was with regard to action taken and copies of the Note sheets of the file relating to the filing of counter reply in the Writ Petition No. 8596/2012(M/B). CPIO, PMO withheld Information to the above points of queries stating that matter was sub judice. Your have contended that in sub judice matters information can be withheld only on the express orders of the competent court and for want of the same, withholding of information does not seem to be appropriate. In this connection, you attention is invited to CIC's order no. CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated 7th May 2012 in the matter of Shri Samir Vijay Zaveri Vs. CPIO, Prime Minister's Office, stating as under:

... affidavit filed by the Prime Minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and orders framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.

6. As per the above decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all related documents relating to the filing of the counter reply to the Writ Petition may as well fall within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CPIO, PMO is in line with CIC decision referred to above.

(v) Meanwhile, Smt. Thakur preferred another appeal dated 4.4.2013 (Annexure E) expressing dissatisfaction over non-supply of information/Note sheets to her [as requested in points 4 & 5 above]. After consideration by the appellate authority, this was responded to vide letter dated 2.5.2013 stating, inter alia, as under-

2. It is stated that you have mentioned in above letter that the Writ Petition no. 8596/2012 has been disposed by the court on 7.3.2013. It is noted that the matter has been decided by the court on 7.3.2013 which is subsequent to the date of the application viz. 6.2.2013 and its disposal by the office viz. 01.3.2013 and as such any request for release of information due to subsequent developments and change in status of the matter is liable to be treated as fresh request and not emanating from the action taken and completed in respect of the original RTI application. As such the request for release of information at such later stage is not maintainable. Therefore, no further action can be taken on the said letter.

(vi) Subsequent to the disposal of her applications and appeals as referred to above, the appellant made yet another fresh RTI application No. NT/RTI-PMO/05 dated 08.05.2013, received on 14.05.2013 (Annexure F), whereby she while referring to a Writ Petition No. 8596/2012(M/B) filed before Allahabad High Court, Lucknow, repeatedly sought the same information, as under:

1. When was the Writ Petition received by your office?

2. What action was taken by your office in this regards?

3. Who/which ministry has this matter been referred to?

4. Has any subsequent action been taken by your office on receipt of this Writ Petition?

5. Kindly provide all the copies of the Note sheet of the file opened in your office as regards this matter.

(vii) In response, CPIO, PMO, vide letter No. RTI/2253/2013-PMR dated 06.6.2013 (Annexure G), provided a 3 page input supplied by the office, the text of which is reproduced, as under:

The following are the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountant of India Versus Shaunk H. Satya and Others in Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 2011 decided on September 2, 2011:

22. -The exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is available not only in regard to information that is held by a pubic authority (in this case the examining body) in a fiduciary capacity, but also to any information that is given or made available by a public authority to anyone else for being held in a fiduciary relationship. In other words, anything given and taken in confidence expecting confidentiality to be maintained will be information available to a person in fiduciary relationship.

24. One of the objects of democracy is to bring about Transparency of information to contain corruption and bring about accountability. But achieving this object does not mean that other equally important public interests including efficient functioning of the governments and public authorities, optimum use of limited fiscal resources, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, etc. are to be ignored or sacrificed. The object of the RTI Act is to harmonize the conflicting public interests, that is, ensuring transparency to bring in accountability and containing corruption on the one hand, and at the same time ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not harm or adversely affect other public interests which include efficient functioning of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, on the other hand. While sections 3 and 4 seek to achieve the first objective, sections8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to achieve the second objective.

25. Therefore, when section 8 exempts certain information from being disclosed, it should not be considered to be a fetter on the right to information, but as an equally important provision protecting other public interests essential important provision protecting other public interests essential for the fulfillment and preservation of democratic ideals. Therefore, in dealing with information not falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c), the competent authorities under the RTI Act will not read the exemptions in Section 8 in a restrictive manner but in a Practical manner so that the other public interests are preserved and the RTI Act attains a fine balance between its goal of attaining transparency of information and safeguarding the other public interests.

39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.

The applicant's attempt to conduct a roving into the matter by herself after losing her credibility in the High Court which also made adverse remarks against her is clearly an attempt to interfere with the processing of confidential matters in the Government....

(viii) Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 5.7.2013 (Annexure H), against the response stating inter alia that the desired information has been denied in a completely incorrect and illegal manner and also wrongly quoting a Hon'ble Supreme Court order. She, therefore, requested to provide the requisite information.

(ix) The appellate authority, PMO, vide letter dated 10.3.2014 (Annexure I), disposed the appeal, reiterating the input and observing, inter alia, as under:

In this context, I find that the Writ Petition No. 8596/2012(M/B) filed by you has been dismissed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court vide Order dated 7.3.2013...

In view of the observations made by the Allahabad High Court while dismissing your Writ Petition which is connected with the matter on which you have preferred the instant appeal for information and the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants Vs. Shaunk H. Satya and others in Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 2011 (RTI matter) dated 2.9.2011, I find that there is no merit in your appeal. Accordingly, your appeal is dismissed.

Case no. CIC/SM/C/2013/000452/SS

(i) Smt. Nutan Thakur made another RTI application No. NT/RTI-PMO/01 dated 06.02.2013, received on 09.02.2013(Annexure J). While referring to a letter no. NT/RV/DLF/01 dated 9.10.2012 sent to this office on the issue of business deals between Shri Robert Vadra and the DLF company, she sought information as under:

1. When was this letter received by your office?

2. What action was taken by your office in this regards?

3. Who/which ministry has this matter been referred to?

4. Has the concerned person/Ministry presented any facts before your office after having conducted an enquiry in this matter?

5. Kindly provide a copy of the enquiry report, if any.

6. Has any subsequent action been taken by your office on receipt of this enquiry report, if any.

7. Kindly provide all the copies of the Note sheet of the file opened in your office as regards this matter.

(ii) CPIO, PMO, on the basis of inputs provided by the office, vide letter dated 04.3.2013(Annexure K), provided the following point-wise response to the applicant:

Point no.	Response
1	11.10.2012
2 & 3	The letter dated 9.10.2012 was forwarded to Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, with the request that a suitable action may be taken in the matter.
4, 5 & 6	In view of 2 & 3 above, question does not arise.
7	The matter is sub-judice.

(iii) Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 6.3.2013(Annexure L), complaining not receiving the response.

(iv) After receiving the appeal, a copy of reply was again sent to the applicant on 22.3.2013(Annexure M).

(v) The appellate authority, PMO, vide letter dated 05.4.2013(Annexure N), disposed the appeal with following observations/findings:

5. It is noted that on receipt of appeal, CPIO, PMO, vide letter dated 22.3.2013 has again sent a copy of the reply dated 4.3.2013 to you.

(vi) Smt. Thakur preferred another appeal dated 4.4.2013(Annexure O) expressing dissatisfaction over non-supply of Note sheets to her [as requested in point 7 above] stating that the writ petition has been disposed by the Hon'ble Court vide it's order dated 7.3.2013 and hence the matter is no longer sub judice. After consideration of Appellate Authority, his appeal was responded to vide letter dated 2.5.2013 stating, inter alia, as under-

2. It is stated that you have mentioned in above letter that the Writ Petition no. 8596/2012 has been disposed by the court on 7.3.2013. It is noted that the matter has been decided by the court on 7.3.2013 which is subsequent to the date of the application viz. 6.2.2013 and its disposal by the office viz. 4.3.2013 and as such any request for release of information due to subsequent developments and change in status of the matter is liable to be treated as fresh request and not emanating from the action taken and completed in respect of the original RTI application. As such the request for release of information at such later stage is not maintainable. Therefore, no further action can be taken on the said letter.

3. The appellant preferred appeals(2nd)/complaints bearing no. CIC/SM/C/2013/000452/SS and CIC/SM/A/2013/000860/SS before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, expressing dissatisfaction over the decisions of the CPIO, PMO and the Appellate Authority, PMO regarding non disclosure of Note sheets dealing with her Writ Petition and letter dated 9.2.2012. The Commission vide Notice dated 10.2.2014 fixed hearing in these cases on 11.3.2014 which was attended by the undersigned. As the appellant filed separate complaint bearing Number CIC/DS/C/2013/000596/SS referring to both her applications dated 6.2.2013 and 8.5.2013, the matter was again heard by Hon'ble Commission on 19.3.2014 as per its hearing Notice No. CIC/DS/C/2013/000596/SS dated 3.3.2014. Hon'ble Commission vide interim orders dated 11.3.2014 and 19.3.2014 respectively directed the undersigned CPIO to submit a 'written submission' in the matter with a copy to the appellant for filing rejoinder, if any, in the matter.

In short, the appellant's plea in all the above cases is based on non-furnishing of note-sheets emanating from the following issues-

(a) Writ Petition filed by the same appellant before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench where a counter reply stated to have been filed by this office.

(b) A letter dated 9.10.2012 sent by the appellant to this office in regard to business deals between Shri Robert Vadra and a private company.

..........

4.4. As regards disclosure of the file Note sheets of the file relating to the matter, it is submitted that they contains information relating to internal deliberations towards recourse to be taken before the Court and advice/opinion of the office that has been received from legal sources/bodies. Any advice tendered by the Law officers to the Government is privileged and confidential, and attracts the provisions of 8(1)(e) of the Act and Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hon'ble High Court decision(s) cited above amply clarifies the fact that this is not a case of public interest. Moreover, under Section129 of the Indian Evidence Act, no one shall be compelled to disclose any confidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal professional adviser.

4.5. Within the meaning of section 2(n) of the Right to Information Act, a public authority is also a third party. Therefore, PMO being a public authority can hold confidential information regarding how it wishes to contest the proceeding arising out of writ petition(s) repeatedly filed by the appellant on the same issue. If such line of defence is disclosed even after disposal of the Writ Petition in the Court, the interest of the public authority will not only be severely harmed but also the public authority's ability to safeguard the public interest against the intrusive actions by individuals will be compromised.

4.6. In this connection, attention is invited to a full bench decision of the Commission in case No. CIC/AT/C/2008/00025 dated 27.07.2009 [Milap Choraria Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes] on similar grounds (Annexure Q). Extracts from the decision are given below:

39. The sum-total of the respondent's arguments, therefore, is that appellant has tried to conflate his personal interest with public interest in order to force the public authority to share with him all that it knows confidentially about how it wished to defend its position in the law suit by the appellant.

40. The respondents have derived strength from Sections 123, 124 and 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, which authorize them under certain circumstances to withhold from public disclosure information held by the officers of the public authority in confidence, except when public interest warrants such disclosure.

41. They have further argued that these provisions of the Indian Evidence Act were entirely consistent with the provisions under Section11(1) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is duty-bound under Section 11(1) to consider the grounds which a public authority urges to keep confidential information undisclosed and to decide on the validity of the grounds for its decision. According to the public authority, the grounds for non-disclosure of present set of information are: no public interest was being served but the appellant's personal interest; disclosure would compromise the ability of the public authority to find the best way to legally defend the interest of one of its officers, who is threatened by legal action of the appellant; the right of the Government not to share the evidence and the records it holds in that regard with the very person threatening to drag it to the law court; the larger implication of such right being conferred on litigants to access all information held by Government relating to litigation they themselves start; such disclosures would compromise the public authority's ability to carry out its mandate and to attend with the best of its ability to the responsibilities it is entrusted to discharge, etc.

42. In our view, respondents have persuasively argued that under Section 11(1) of the Act, there are compelling grounds for them to hold confidential information relating to how they wished to defend their legal position in litigation or a threatened litigation. Their reference to the violation of the norms of equity in allowing the very person, who seeks to drag the public authority to court, all information about how the public authority wishes defend itself is also quite convincing.

43. In our view, appellant has failed to cite any public interest that would commend superseding the protected interest in the matter of disclosure of the requested information, within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.

4.7. Further, the applicant's Writ Petitions and the letter in question revolve around some media report and allegations made by private entities. The allegations made therein are again against some private individuals/firms. Disclosure of any information to this effect [like the note-sheets in this case] would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of each and every parties named therein attracting the provisions under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Moreover, all of them are considered as 'third parties" within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The organizations/public authorities, including the legal advisers, involved in the decision making process are also "third parties" as adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Public Information Officer [LPA No. 719/2010 dated 30th September, 2011](Annexure R). In this case, Hon'ble Court has clarified the scope of section 11, stating that when a information seeker files an application, which relates or has been supplied by third party, the PIO has to examine whether the said information is treated as confidential or can be treated as confidential by the third party if the answer is in the possible sphere of affirmative or "may be yes" then the procedure prescribed for in section 11 has to be followed. Hon'ble High Court, in the said judgment has categorically observed as under:

16. Thus, Section 11(1) postulates two circumstances when the procedure has to be followed. Firstly when the information relates to a third party and can prima facie regarded as confidential as it affects the right of privacy of the third party. The second situation is when information is provided and given by a third party to a public authority and prima facie the third party who has provided information has treated and regarded the said information as confidential. The procedure given in Section 11(1) applies to both cases.

4.8. The preamble of the Right to Information Act provides for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. At the same time, it states that revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, thereby emphasizing the necessity to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal.

4.9. The Supreme Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [MANU/SC/0532/1992 : (1992) 4 SCC 305] observed that the purpose of the public interest is:

[T]o wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not for personal gain or private profit of political motive or any oblique consideration.

In S.P. Gupta v. President of India (MANU/SC/0080/1981 : AIR 1982 SC 149), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:

Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' right and interests are vindicating public interest...enforcement of public interest to general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.

4.10. In the instant case, the appellant has not come forward with any ground as to how the disclosure of the information will be in the "public interest". On the other hand, the information [note-sheet] sought by her would not only possibly harm or injure the interest of the third parties some of which have contributed in fiduciary capacity but also has the potential of compromise the privacy and reputation of the person mentioned in the document. There is another aspect of the matter which also needs serious consideration, in general, in this regime of transparency and accountability. When an unverified and unsupported allegation is addressed to any authority, the author immediately commits an offence, and if the contents and information relating to the same allegations as held by the public authority are allowed to be disclosed, the same will amount to the commission of a separate offence being unwittingly abetted by the public authority. Elsewhere, the Court while dismissing her petition, has observed that there is no "positive assertions" by the petitioner regarding infringement of her legal right and, has scoffed at 'roving enquiry' in the absence of "any allegation of violation of any statutory or constitutional provision".

4.11. The attention of the Commission is also invited to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhya wherein it has been mentioned that the provisions of the Right to Information Act should not be allowed to be misused. In this connection, relevant extracts of para 37 of the Supreme Court judgment, are produced below:-

...Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collection and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty....

In view of the above, the Hon'ble Commission may please appreciate that the note-sheets relating to the subject case are not liable to be disclosed on the following grounds:

(a) The matter has been agitated by the appellant before Hon'ble High Court twice and has been dismissed with the reasons given in preceding paras. Using the route of RTI Act, after failure at the higher judicial forum is untenable and illegal and need be construed as misuse of law. The appeal of the appellant need be discussed by Hon'ble Commission on this ground alone.

(b) The information contained in the note-sheet has been received from law officers under fiduciary capacity and as such exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Section 124 and 129 of the Indian Evidence Act also allows non-disclosure of the advice tendered by the Law Officers to the Government.

(c) Within the meaning of the section 2(n) of the RTI Act, a public authority being a third party is entitled to refuse disclosure of information relating to the law of arguments and strategy, it intends to be contested in the legal proceedings against the public authority.

(d) As the issue involved in the instant case relates to third parties, it will be incorrect to disclose information related to them, as it will lead to invasions of privacy of third party(ies) involved including of legal professionals; and as such exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

(e) Catena of Judicial pronouncement of the subject as cited above brings it clear that misuse/abuse the provisions of RTI Act is against the larger public interest of the society and needs to be curbed to serve the same.

5.2. As such, it is submitted that refusal for disclosure of note sheet by the public authority is as per the provisions of the law and judicial pronouncement on the subject. Therefore, it is prayed that Hon'ble Commission may reject the appeals and complaint filed by Smt. Nutan Thakur.

As directed by Hon'ble Commission, a copy of this communication being endorsed to the appellant.

Decision:

3. The appellant's plea in the present case is for non-furnishing of note-sheets in relation to the Writ Petition filed by the appellant before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. The Commission finds merit in the arguments raised by the respondent in para 4.4 of his written submissions wherein it has been stated that the discussions of the file note-sheets of the files relating to the said matter contains information relating to internal deliberations towards recourse to be taken before the Court and advice/opinion from legal sources/bodies. The respondent has taken the plea of Section 8(1)(e) and Section 11 of the RTI Act with regard to the said note-sheets containing advice tendered by Law Officers. The respondent also relied on Section 129 of the Evidence Act in para 4.4 of his submissions. Moreover, the Commission finds no reason to differ from the previous Full Bench decision in file No,. CIC/AT/C/2008/00025 dated 27.7.2009 in Milap Choraria Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes. The CIC has held that "Their reference to the violation of the norms of equity in allowing the very person, who seeks to drag the public authority to court, all information about how the public authority wishes defend itself is also quite convincing." The Commission hereby holds that the appellant is not entitled to the said note-sheets in relation to the case filed by the appellant in the Hon'ble High Court, in view of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. With regard to information at Point No. 4, 5 and 6 of the RTI application dated 6.2.2013, the reply of the respondent CPIO is upheld, since the CPIO has already clarified in reply to Point No. 2 and 3 of the RTI application that appellant's letter dated 9.10.2012 was forwarded to Secretary, Department of Legal Affair with request that suitable action may be taken in the matter. Furthermore, the CPIO shall transfer the point no. 4, 5 & 6 to the concerned department under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the appellant has sought to obtain information in relation to the enquiry report (if any), in relation to the appellant's letter dated 9.10.2012 which has been forwarded to Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs. The transfer shall be made within 5 days from the receipt of this order.

The appeal is disposed of.

Print Page