Central Information Commission
Mr.Satish Chander Bhardwaj vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 13 May, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000205 dated 25.2.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri S. C. Bhardwaj
Respondent - Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
Decision announced: 13.5.2010
Facts:
By an application of 3.4.08 Shri Satish Chander Bhardwaj of Silvassa, Dadra & Nagar Haveli moved an application before the PIO, Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me certified copy of the information and documents in relation to - What action was taken against my complaint dated 21.11.07 by your good self? Why NIC is protected by Hon'ble Tribunal New Delhi, Lucknow & Mumbai in the Contempt Petition No. 04/99 and C.P. No. 02/08? Why Hon'ble Members Shri Jog Singh and others favor NIC in my transfer matter O.A. No. 293/07? I also request to provide me the present and permanent address of the retired judges / members those who were involved in my cases in the complaint dated 21.11.07. Please reply all the queries under the RTI Act in complaint dated 21.11.07."
To this he received response of 9.5.08 from Shri M. M. Pandey, Dy. Registrar (JA) CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi informing him as follows:
"It is pertinent to mention here that if aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, as per the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, you may file Review application or approach the higher forum, if so desired. Moreover, the Central Information Commission has ruled that judicial proceedings of Court and Tribunal are beyond the purview of RTI Act.
As regards providing information of present and permanent address of the retired Judges / Members of CAT, the same are exempted from disclosure as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Kind attention is also invited to the provisions of Section 32 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 which envisages as under:1
"32. Protection of action taken in good faith: - No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central or State Government or against the Chairman, or other Members of any Central or Joint or State Administrative Tribunals, or any other person authorized by such Chairman, or other Member for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rule or order made there under."
The name and designation of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority in CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi are as under:
CPIO - Shri Anil Srivastava, Joint Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench 61/35, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi.
Tel. 011-23385058
Appellate Shri N. Ramamurthy, Registrar
Authority Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
61/35, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi.
Tel. 011-23382507."
Aggrieved, Shri Bhardwaj moved an appeal on 10.8.08 before Shri N. Ramamurthy, Principal Registrar, CAT pleading as follows:
"The reply given by APIO and CPIO is totally mischief and they are not providing any information thus protecting corruption in the judiciary."
Upon this, Shri N. Ramamurthy, Registrar, in his decision of 18.9.08 has held as follows:
"Both have given correct information to Shri Satish Chandra Bhardwaj so far his complaint dated 21.11.2007 is concerned. APIO & CPIO both have informed appellant that his complaint dated 21.11.2007 was placed before Hon'ble the Chairman and his Lordship had approved it to be filed. I have also perused that appellant was advised to file either Review application or an appeal before appropriate forum, if he so desired for which provision exist in CAT Act and Rules. So far as providing present and permanent address of the retired Judges / Members of the CAT by the appellant it was made clear to him that same is exempted from disclosure as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and I am also of the view no larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information and in judicial proceedings of OAs 2 etc. party is free to file RAs, WPs. etc. to challenge decisions of CAT. Going through the reply of APIO as also decision of the CPIO taken on his RTI application, I am convinced and in agreement with the decision of APIO and CPIO. Further, it is informed to the Appellant that so far the functioning of the Judges is concerned and the way they take decision in any case depends on the merits of each case separately and orders can be appealed against in High Court etc. if so desired by petitioners. In addition to what APIO & CPIO already explained, I would like to add that Appellant having not found orders of CAT to his satisfaction in OAs/CPs filed by him before Tribunal, applicant is alleging and using language in his letters against Hon'ble Member of CAT which is not just. If the applicant is aggrieved by decisions delivered by any Judge / Court he is free to take further course of legal action by approaching higher forum / Court than the Court which delivered decisions in his matters instead of making correspondence or using inappropriate language against functionaries of Tribunal.
Here I would also like to invite Appellant's attention to the full Bench order dated 18th Sept., 2007 deciding appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00586 by the Central Information Commission particularly to Para 49 of which is reproduced below:
"49. It is our conclusion, therefore, that given that a judicial authority must function with total independence and freedom, should it be found that an action initiated under RTI Act, impinges upon the authority of that judicial body, the commission will not authorize the use of the RTI Act for any such disclosure requirement. Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act is quite clear which gives a total discretion to the Court or the Tribunal to decide as to what should be published. An information seeker should, therefore, approach the concerned court or the Tribunal if he intends to have some information concerning a judicial proceeding and it is for the concerned court or the tribunal to take a decision in the matter as to whether the information requested is concerning judicial proceedings either pending before it or decided by it can be given or not."
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, I am of the considered view that here is no substance in the appeal dated 10.8.08 made by Shri Satish Chander Bhardwaj and otherwise also judicial proceedings are outside the purview of RTI Act as held by CIC in its several decisions. Hence his appeal is rejected."
3Aggrieved is, appellant Shri Bhardwaj has moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
1. "To issue direction to the APIO, CPIO & AA to furnish information and copy of the certified documents as per my complain dated 21.11.07, what disciplinary action taken against the retired judicial and administrative members who worked under the influence of NIC and denied justice.
2. To order an inquiry against the APIO, CPIO & AA for not implementing the RTI Act properly.
3. To impose penalties and disciplinary action against CPIO & AA under Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005.
4. To provide the present and permanent address of the retired judicial members as per my complain dated 22.11.07 and also provide their Pension Pay Order.
5. To give direction to Hon'ble Chairman Shri V. K. Bali for the fair trial in all my pending legal matters (transfer, promotion and contempt) and pay my salary for the period 20.9.98 to 26.11.99, 23.1.04 to 22.1.07 and 1.7.07 to till date and punish the condemners as per law."
The appeal was scheduled for hearing by video conference on 13.5.2010. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Kochi, (Kerala) Shri Satish Chander Bhardwaj Respondents at CIC Office, New Delhi.
Shri N. Rama Murthy, Principal Registrar Shri Anil Srivastava, Joint Registrar Shri Sanjay Sharma, Deputy Registrar.
At the very opening of the hearing, appellant Shri Satish Chander Bhardwaj walked out of the room to attend to telephone calls, manifesting in no uncertain terms the regard in which he holds such a hearing, and was not, therefore, heard.
DECISION NOTICE Since Shri S.C.Bhardwaj absented himself from the hearing after making an appearance, it is assumed that he has nothing to submit in this matter. We, however, notice that in response to application of 3.4.08, CPIO has responded 4 only on 9.5.08 whereas response had become due on 3.5.08. Similarly in a response, to the first appeal, which was due on 30.6.08, a response has only been sent on 8.7.08. Besides, in the present case there seems to have been two appeals - one of 30.5.08 and another of 10.5.08 upon which there are two orders
- one of 8.7.08 and the other of 18.9.08. Whereas, therefore, the Registrar of CAT is cautioned to exercise greater closer compliance with the RTI Act in disposing of RTI applications, since appellant Shri Bhardwaj has nothing to submit in this matter, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no costs.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 13.5.2010 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 13.5.2010 5