Central Information Commission
T V Sundaresan vs Supreme Court Of India on 23 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/122314
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/132692
Shri T V Sundaresan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024
Date of Decision : 08.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/122314
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.01.2023
PIO replied on : 12.02.2023
First Appeal filed on : 28.02.2023
First Appellate Order on : 24.03.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : Nil
Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/132692
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.01.2023
PIO replied on : 15.04.2023
First Appeal filed on : 19.04.2023
First Appellate Order on : 12.07.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
(1) नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/122314
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.01.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1) "Information sought based on SCLSCs ref ANR 5121-2021/SCLSC/2022 DT 28.6.2022;
1.1) copy of the application dt 24.8.2021 mentioned in para 1 of your said letter may be forwarded-WEEDED OUT Page 1 1.2) name of the legal service counsel cum consultant, bar council registration number, how is he/she associated with SCLSC (as employee or in any other capacity), his/her source of income from SCLSC, how is payment to him/her accounted in SCLSC, his/her office address , his/her residential address and all other details that will be needed to file various cases against her/him eg misconduct, criminal, tort etc etc-may be furnished SEC 8(1)(G) 1.3) similar details of the legal serv ice counsel cum consultant who issued her opinion dt 8.1.2014 stated in the said letter dt 28.6.2022 may be furnished SEC 8(1)(G) 1.4) similar details of the senior counsel who issued opinion dt 23.8.2016 may be furnished SEC 8(1)(G) 1.5) copy of the said opinion dt 23.8.2016 fraudulently not attached to your said letter dt 28.6.2022 may be furnished 1.6) similar details of the person who issued letter ANR 5121-2021/SCLSC/2022 DT 28.6.2022; may be furnished SEC (1)(G)
2) Similar details of the person who issued mail/letter F4(10)/3131/SCLSC/2021/MS 17.06.2021 dt 17 June 2021 may be furnished SEC 8(1)(G)
3) Copy of the application dt 30.4.2021 for legal aid mentioned in the said letter at para 2 may be furnished WEEDED OUT
4) Similar details of the Legal Services Counsel-cum-Consultant mentioned in the said mail dt 17.6.2021 may be furnished SEC 8(1)(G)
5) Instances where SCLSC has furnished legal aid under SCLSC Reg 15(a) SCLSC Regulations may be furnished Sec 11 P:\2022 annual report Parliament imp for wp\2022-23 RTIA cases\scisc nalsa\scisc\10.1.2023 APPLICATION\first appeal.docx Page 5 of 7 Enclosure 1 is at page 4 to 7
6) Instances where SCLSC has furnished legal aid under SCLSC Reg 15(b) SCLSC Regulations may be furnished Sec 11
7) And other related information."
The CPIO, Supreme Court of India vide letter dated 12.02.2023 replied as under:-
"1.1 Record has been weeded out.
1.2. to 1.3. The information sought by the applicant fall under Section 8(1)
(g) of the RTI Act. Hence no reply.
1.4. The information sought by the applicant fall under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act.
1.5. Copy of the opinion dated 23.08.2016 is enclosed herewith. 1.6. The information sought by the applicant fall under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act. Hence no reply.
2. The information sought by the applicant fall under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act. Hence no reply.
3. Record has been weeded out
4. Kindly see the reply mentioned at point Nos. 1.2 to 1.3. 5 & 6. The information sought under para 5 and 6 fall under Section 11 of the RTI Act. Hence no reply.
7. Etc."
Page 2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 24.03.2023 stated as under:-
"Under the RTI Act the applicant is entitled to an information available in the official records of the public authority. The RTI Act has no provision for redressal of greivance or resolution of inter se dispute. As per the record, the applicant was give the information available and therefore there is no breach of any provision of RTI Act. Hence the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/132692 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.01.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Information sought of NALSA and SCLSC-paras 2 and 6 at page 14 and at para 2, 9 and 10 at this page and next page- para 14 explains to CPIO how he should discuss with those in charge of governance named at para 8 in discharge of CPIOs duties under sec 5(4), 5(5) etc RTIA and furnish the information Pls see the description of annexures below. At page 14 to end we have a copy of RTIA application to SCLSC copied to you and forwarded to you as NLSAT/R/E/23/00015 asking for information in the same manner as explained at page 14. see next para ie para 2 and para 9 and 10
2) Page 14 as stated above at paras 2 and 6 of the said page 14 asks for information from SCLSC also. (The information sought in NLSAT/R/E/23/00015 is also the same but the information asked here of the CPIO NALSA on the matters asked at paras 2 and 6/ page 14 of annexure and also at para 14 below is the information and ATR available after the CPIO takes the help as mentioned in sec 5(4), 5(5) RTIA and obtain the inputs of those mentioned at para 8 as they are the best persons who can furnish the information.
3) Same information is sought vide your records and if none, NIL information. Thus there is no scope for you to transfer the same to SCLSC or others.
4) The matters at page 1, page 6 explain the fraud in details. Page 25 explains how in the absence of reports from SCLSC etc the annual report of CIC is misleading. Para 18 explains how NERAMAC only to carry on perpetrating fraud has been flouting RTIA since 2017 and misleading reports are placed before Parliament.
5) page 14 and 15 are the information sought from both SCLSC (as per its récords) and NALSA ( as per its records)
6) Pages 1 and 6 explain along with pages 18 and 25 explain the fraud and how to combat the same and prevent the same and ensure justice.
7) On account of the complexities associated on account of several public servants etc acting in concert-considering the fraud perpetrated by legal aid Page 3 agencies and counsels and wilful refusal of NALSA to respond in NLSAT/R/E/22/00474 NLSAT/A/E/22/00090 and CIC attempting to aid NALSA etc etc this application is made to NALSA and others.
8) Since legal aid counsels and organisations have as explained at page 15 have done their best not only to deny justice to me, fabricated my income and wilfully ignored the association of AGM fraud in my case and also encouraged further AGM fraud as explained and to be explained in complaints to Lokpal and also as explained at pages 1 to 5 etc etc etc the CPIO may note the provisions of Sec 5(4), 5(5) etc of RTIA and seek the help of those both in the executive and judiciary who are in the governing body of NALSA eg Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Executive Chairman, who are also associated with SCLSC and offer para wise point wise information of both SCLSC and NALSA being information sought of from both SCLSC and NALSA at paras 2 and 6 of page 14 and para 9 and 10 of this page below
9) Hopefully then NALSA will offer an ATR on the following also;
• Steps to be taken by it to ensure legal aid is reliable, trustworthy, accountable, accessible • Given the past track record of SCLSC, HCLSC Mumbai, legal aid counsels, NALSA and others how does NALSA propose to furnish assurances to my sat6isfaction • How do I monitor and prevent my counsels from perpetrating fraud • Improvements in disciplinary mechanism of counsels and legal aid counsels and other remedies.
• Fast remedy if my counsels perpetrate fraud • Improvements in disciplinary measures at BCI • Adequate Compensation and indemnities and guarantees to me on fraud to me Etc etc etc.."
The CPIO, Supreme Court of Legal Services Committee vide letter dated 15.04.2023 replied as under:-
Para 2 and 6 of page 17 of 32 The query raised by the applicant in Para 2 and 6 of page 17 of 32 has already been replied to the applicant vide this office letter No. F-10/SCLSC/RTI/2023 dated 18.02.2023 in response to his RTI Application No. NLSAT/R/E/23/00015 dated 12.01.2023.
Para 9 and 10 of page 2 of 32 The queries raised in para 9 and 10 of page 2 of 32 are grievance in nature, which does not fall within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also does not fall under the ambit and scope of duties of the CPIO, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to give advice or redressal of your grievances.
Page 4 to 15 of 32 The query raised on pages 4 to 15 of 32 grievance in nature, which does not fall within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also does not fall under the ambit and scope of duties of the CPIO, Page 4 Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to give advice or redressal of your grievances.Page 18 of 32
On page 18 of 32, there is a copy of RTI Application dated 10.01.2023, the SCLSC has already reply to the said queries vide CPIO, letter No. F- 9/SCLSC/RTI/2023 dated 12.02.2023.Page 21 of 32
On page 21 of 32, there is an appeal dated 10.01.2023 preferred by the pplicant to the First Appellate Authority, NERAMAC, the same does not relates to this Committee. Hence no reply.Page 28 of 32
The query raised on page 28 of 32 are grievance in nature and does not fall under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2023. The FAA vide order dated 12.07.2023 stated as under:-
"I have been directed by the First Appellate Authority, SCLSC to inform you that you have been preferred three First Appeal against your RTI applications No. 1. NLSAT/R/T/23/00005 2. NLSAT/R/E/23/00015 3. NLSAT/R/T/23/00020. In this connection it is to inform you that your First Appeal against your RTI application No. NLSAT/R/E/23/00015 has already been decided by the First Appellate Authority, SCLSC vide order dated 24.03.2023 and order has already communicated to you vide letter dated 25.03.2023.
You have not sent the reference No. of CPIO replies in your RTI applications mentioned at Sr. No. 1 and 3 above, as such you are requested to send the reference No. of CPIO, SCLSC replies specifically so that necessary action will be taken in your First Appeals."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Ms. Meena, SO, NALSA, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate on behalf SCLSC, Mr. Ashok Kr. Verma, Assistant Section officer, SCLSC- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
Written submission received from the Appellant has been taken on record for perusal.
Page 5 The Appellant reiterated the averment made in his written submission and stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the PIO. He stated that Legal aid counsels and those in legal aid conspiring with the fraudster. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish complete information.
The Respondent reiterated the averment made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant. They further stated that the application of the Appellant for legal -aid has been denied after analysing all his documents and on the basis of legal opinion. They stated that the Appellant has sought personal information if legal aid counsels which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. They averred that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications, and he is seeking redressal of his grievance through RTI Act.
Decision:
Since the Appellant is the same the matters are clubbed together for final hearing and disposal.
Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Matters are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)