Central Information Commission
Pradip Kumar Mandal vs Supreme Court Of India on 13 February, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/SCOFI/C/2022/663546
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/669864
Shri Pradip Kumar Mandal निकायतकताग /Complainant
... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee
Date of Hearing : 13.02.2024
Date of Decision : 13.02.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 28.04.2022
PIO replied on : 08.06.2022
First Appeal filed on : 30.06.2022
First Appellate Order on : -
Complaint received on : 30.11.2022
2ndAppeal received on : 02.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"Background statement: 1 sent Application dated 24.01.2022 for the free legal aid under section 12 (h) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 read with the income. ceiling under section 13 (2) ibid prescribed by the Gujarat State Government where I have been residing (Copy of the application is enclosed: vide Annexure Il for a ready reference). The application was delivered to the NALSA on 02.02.2022 and NALSA forwarded the application to your office, vide NALSA letter No.7735 & 7736/NALSA/LA/2022 dated 15.02.2022 (Copy of the NALSA letter is enclosed, vide Annexure I).
1. Let me know the action taken by the Competent Authority chronologically from the date of receipt of the application at the end of the Hon'ble SCLSA.Page 1 of 4
2. If any orders are issued to the NHRC on a pre-litigation basis, let be supplied me with the certified copy of the order copy.
3. Let be supplied me with a certified copy of the scrutiny report made by the Competent Authority
4. Let be supplied me with a certified copy of the order sheet made by the Competent. Etc.."
The CPIO, Department of legal affairs vide letter dated 02.05.2022 transferred the instant RTI Application to CPIO, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
The CPIO, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee vide letter dated 08.06.2022 replied as under:-
"With reference to your application dated 29.04.2022, which has been transferred by the CPIO, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, vide his letter No. MOLAW/R/E/22/00372/RTI/LA dated
02.05.2022 under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, I am to inform you on point No. 1 to 19 of your RTI application that your your application for legal aid dated 24.01.2022 addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, which has been delivered in this Committee by the National Legal Services Authority vide letter D.No. 7735 & 7736/NALSA/LA/2022/6434 dated 15.02.2022. Your matter was placed before the Legal Service Counsel-Cum-Consultant of this Committee for opinion. The opinion given by her is reproduced below:
"The applicant is seeking grant of Legal Aid for the purpose of his case before NHRC. In view of regulation 5 of SCLSC regulations the prayer made do not fall within the scope and ambit of the Committee. Legal Aid may not be granted. Case may be closed."
In view of the above mentioned opinion your case papers were returned to you vide this office letter No. 2554-2022 dated 02.05.2022."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 30.06.2022. The FAA, Department of legal affairs vide order dated 04.07.2022 directed the PIO, Department of legal affairs to transfer the First Appeal to FAA, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal.
Written submissions/Affidavit dated 26.01.2024 has been received from the Complainant/Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant/Appellant: Present through video conferencing. Respondent: 1. Ms. Sudha Gupta, Advocate, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.Page 2 of 4
2. Mr. Mohit Giridhar, Legal Consultant.
3. Mr. Ashok Verma, Asstt. Section officer.
The Appellant/Complainant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the reply furnished by the PIO, SCLSC is incomplete. He stated point-wise reply in tabular for has not been furnished by the PIO. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish point-wise information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been furnished to the Appellant/Complainant. They stated that Supreme Court Legal Services Committee provides legal aid and assistance for the cases listed before Supreme Court. They stated that the Appellant/Complainant is seeking grant of Legal Aid for the purpose representation of his case before NHRC which do not fall within the scope and ambit of the Committee and accordingly in view of regulation 5 of SCLSC regulations the case of Appellant/Complainant has been closed.
Decision:
Since both the cases arise out of the same RTI Application, they are clubbed together for final hearing and disposal.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers and giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. The Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/669864 is disposed of, accordingly.
As regards the Complaint No. CIC/SCOFI/C/2022/663546, the Commission observes that prima facie there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information to the Appellant/Complainant, hence no action warranted under section 18 and section 20 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the aforementioned Complaint is disposed off, accordingly.
Matters are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4