Information about power of attorney - CIC: Since the RTI application and first appeal have been filed by GDC Lawyers Chambers (an entity) and not by an individual, the CIC is not going into the merits and deems the instant appeal as not maintainable

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.01.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“POWER OF ATTORNEY

A. Special power of attorney

BLOOD RELATION

A.1. Whether the SPA can be executed in blood relations

Sl.No. 1

NAME GDC LAWYERS CHAMBER

SIGNATURES ..

B. NON-BLOOD RELATION

B.5. Whether the SPA can be executed and registered in non-blood relation

B.6. Whether any direction or guideline is issued to your concerned office which prohibits SPA in-non-blood relations

B.7. Provide the draft copy of the SPA which is allowed or acceptable, by the registrar in non-blood relations.

C. POWER OF ATTORNEY WITH CONSIDERATIONS

Sl.No. 1

NAME GDC LAWYERS CHAMBER

SIGNATURES ..

2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 11.05.2023, held as under:

“An appeal has been filed by GDC Lawyers Chamber (Appellant) in reference to his RTI Applications dated 11/01/2023 and first appeal request received on 27/03/2023 vide diary No 2270 to 2277. In this regard, a notice was issued on 03/04/2023 and 27/04/2023 for fixing the matter for hearing of the First Appeal on 24/04/2023 & 04/05/2023 at 03.00 PM.

The appeal was heard on 04/05/2023. GDC Lawyers Chamber (Appellant) was attended and Smt. Meenakshi, PIO/SR-IV-A attended the hearing. As informed by PIO/SR-IV-A, the reply has been given to appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby disposed of.”

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Not Present.

4. Appellant and the Respondent were not present in the hearing despite receipt of hearing notice in advance.

Decision:

5. Upon a perusal of the facts on records, the Commission observes that the appeal under reference has not been filed as per the provision of Section 6(1) of RTI Act as it has been filed by GDC Lawyers Chambers; and the RTI application and the First Appeal have also been filed by GDC Lawyers Chambers.

6. While Section 3 of the RTI Act bestows the right to information on all ‘citizens’, the enabling provision of Section 6(1) of the RTI Act prescribes as under:

6. Request for obtaining information.—

(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi in the 3 official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to—

(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;

(b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her: Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing.

7. In view of above, since the RTI application and first appeal have been filed by an entity and not by an individual; for the said reasons, the Commission is not going into the merits of the case and deems the instant appeal as not maintainable.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: GDC Lawyers Chamber v. Sub-Registrar-IV-A, DC Office Complex, Nand Nagri, Delhi, CIC/ADDDM/A/2023/130724; Date of Decision : 30.04.2025