Central Information Commission
Wilson Benjamin Castellino vs Supreme Court Of India on 5 March, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या /Complaint No. CIC/SCOFI/C/2018/100893
Wilson Benjamin Castellino ...निकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o Attorney General of ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
India, Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 15.09.2017 FA : - Complaint : 01.12.2017
Hearing: 22.01.2019 and
CPIO : - FAO : -
28.02.2019
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o the Attorney General of India, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi seeking information on seven points, including, inter-alia, a) definition of sentence according to Supreme Court judgment along with copies of judgment(s) in this regard, b) Bar Council rules under which complaints against lawyer's irregularity can be made, c) to whom can a complaint be referred to if an advocate acts against Page 1 of 4 principles of natural justice and d) order given by Justice A K Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan on 11.09.2017, on prisoner's furlough and parole of 1993 train bomb blast convict Ashfaq.
2. The complainant filed a Complaint before the Commission upon non receipt of any response from the PIO. The complainant requested the Commission to initiate action againsts the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. Hearing on 22.01.2019:
3. The complainant was not present despite notice. The respondent Mr. Ajay Agrawal, Addl. Registrar & CPIO was present in person.
Interim Decision:
4. Due to certain unforeseen development, hearing in the matter could not be held. The matter is, therefore, adjourned to 28.02.2019 at 11.40 AM.
5. The Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Notice for Hearing to the CPIO, O/o Attorney General of India, Supreme Court of India, to whom the RTI application dated 15.09.2017 is addressed.
Hearing on 28.02.2019:
6. The complainant Shri Wilson Benjamin Castellino attended the hearing through videoconferencing. The respondent Shri Suchindran B.N., Advocate, O/o Government Pleader, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi was present in person.
7. The complainant submitted that as the Attorney General of India (AGI) is receiving wages and other facilities from the Government of India, the O/o Attorney General of India, should fall under the definition of 'Public Authority' Page 2 of 4 under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. However, he has received no reply in response to the RTI application.
8. The respondent submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 03.02.2017 in LPA No. 168/2015 & CM No. 5470/2015 in the matter of Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice Vs. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal has held that the office of the Attorney General of India is not a public authority under the RTI Act.
Decision:
9. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that in view of the decision dated 03.02.2017 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA No. 168/2015 & CM No. 5470/2015 in the matter of Union of India vs. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, the office of the Attorney General of India is not a 'Public Authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission notes that since the 'the Office of the Attorney General of India' is not a public authority under the RTI Act, no information can be provided to the appellant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
10. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
Page 3 of 411. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date: 01.03.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) S.S.Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Attorney General of India, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi.
2. Mr. Wilson Benjamin Castellino, Page 4 of 4