Date of Hearing : 21.05.2025 Date of Decision : 21.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2024 PIO replied on : 28.06.2024 First Appeal filed on : 07.07.2024 First Appellate Order on : 03.08.2024 2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 12.11.2024
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Please provide details of the total fines(penalties) collected for violations of Section 4, Section 6(a) and Section 6(b) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 within the premises of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and all district courts of Uttar Pradesh, in the last six years (from 2019 to 2024), segregated for smoking and smokeless forms of tobacco use.
2. Please provide the names, designations, and contact details of the concerned officers within the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and each district court of Uttar Pradesh to whom the public can lodge complaints regarding violations of the Act and Rules, particularly related to smoking and smokeless tobacco use within the court premises.
3. Please provide the total number of complaints received by the concerned authorities within the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and each district court of Uttar Pradesh regarding violations of the Act and Rules in the last six years (from 2019 to 2024), specifically related to smoking and smokeless tobacco use within the court premises.
4. Please provide details of any workshops, awareness campaigns, or educational programs conducted by the concerned authorities within the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and each district court of Uttar Pradesh to educate the court staff, lawyers, and visitors about the provisions of the Act and Rules, and the harmful 1 / 5
1
Page 2 of 4
effects of both smoking and smokeless tobacco use, in the last six years (from 2019 to 2024)."
The CPIO, Joint Registrar (RTI), High Court, Allahabad vide letter dated 28.06.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply to query no. 1 pertaining to High Court, Allahabad:-
The information sought by the applicant cannot be provided as the same is not available in this Hon'ble Court.
Central Public Information Officer, High Court, Allahabad can provide only those information which are available with the Allahabad High Court and are covered under the definition of Information' provided in the Section 2(f) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
Reply to query no. 2 pertaining to High Court. Allahabad:-
As per records, available in the concerned section, there is no such order for specifically authorizing an officer of the High Court to whom a public can lodge complaint regarding violation of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 and Rules, particularly related to smoking and smokeless tobacco use within the Court premises.
Reply to query no. 3 pertaining to High Court, Allahabad:-
As per records, available in the concerned section, no complaint has been received regarding violation of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 and Rules in the last six years (from 2019 to 2024), specifically related to smoking and smokeless tobacco use within the Court premises.
Reply to query no. 4 pertaining to High Court. Allahabad:-
As per records, available in the concerned section, no workshop, awareness campaign or educational program has been conducted within the Hon'ble High Court to educate the court staff, lawyers and visitors about the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 and the Rules, and harmful effects of both smoking and smokeless tobacco use, in the past six years (from 2019 to 2024).
Reply to query no. 1. 2. 3 & 4 pertaining to District Courts of State of Uttar Pradesh):-
As per records available in the concerned section, any information on 04 questions asked by the applicant is not available. However G.L. No. 12/67-4(1) dated 23.04.1942 and CL No. 13 dated 23.03.2002 have been issued by this Hon'ble Court in the subject matter and order dated 26.06.2014 passed by Hon'ble Court in Criminal Writ- Public Interest Litigation No. 33285 of 2014, titled Deepak Kumar Pandey Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Others, regarding cleanliness in courts was circulated to the district courts vide letter no. 8983 dated 28.06.2014." Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.07.2024 alleging that incomplete information had been provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 03.08.2024 disposed of the First Appeal with a direction to the CPIO to reconsider the RTI application afresh and inform him to the extent permissible under RTI Act, 2005 read with the Allahabad High Court(RTI) Rules, 2006.
2 / 5
2
Page 3 of 4
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 16.05.2025 has been received from the CPIO which reveals that in compliance with the order dated 02.08.2024 of Ld. Registrar General/First Appellate Authority, passed in the aforesaid first appeal bearing registration no. HCALD/A/2024/60172 dated 07.07.2024, his aforesaid RTI application dated 29.05.2024 was reconsidered in the light of provision contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005 read with the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006, and after reconsideration, reply was provided to the applicant/appellant vide letter bearing 2103/RTI/809/2024/AHC dated 02.09.2024 (photocopy enclosed).
The PIO vide the aforementioned communication dated 02.09.2024 informed the Appellant that with respect to his query regarding implementation of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 within the premises of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad is concerned, the concerned section is not having any information/record with regard to the same.
A copy of this written submission has been duly sent to the Appellant through speed post.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present
Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi - Joint Registrar (RTI), High Court, Allahabad was heard through video conference during hearing.
The Appellant contended that in view of the decision dated 26.06.2014 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Writ- Public Interest Litigation No. 33285 of 2014 [Deepak Kumar Pandey Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Others] the information sought by him should have been readily available. He has alleged that the reply of the PIO indicates lack of implementation and monitoring of the said order. He has also pointed out the CPIO's failure in transferring the RTI Application to the District Courts.
The Respondent present during hearing contended that complete information as available in the existing records had been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of the mandate of the RTI Act. The Appellant added that he had not received the submission on his email though he had filed the RTI online. As a matter of fact it transpired that the RTI application, First Appeal as well as the Second Appeal had been filed in physical form and even the email address of the Appellant is not available on record.
Decision
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing averments of the Respondent, the Commission notes that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and available on records has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. In the light of the Appellant's contention regarding not having received the submission online, the Respondent agreed to send a copy of the written submission when the Appellant shares his email address with them. 3 / 5
3
Page 4 of 4
Considering the fact that appropriate response in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly provided by the Respondent, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मखु्य सचूना आयकु्त) Authenticated true copy
(अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत)
S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535
4 / 5
4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 1 / 15 5
5