Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Dr. Maman Chand Sharma vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 8 May, 2019

                               के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                     Central Information Commission
                            बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/110598
                                        CIC/DSESJ/C/2017/137371

                                                        ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
Dr. Maman Chand Sharma

                                VERSUS/ बनाम

PIO, Dist. & Session Judge, Tis Hazari Court,          ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Delhi
Through: Smt. Usha Arora and Sh. R K Mehra

Date of Hearing                      :   01.05.2019
Date of Decision                     :   01.05.2019
Information Commissioner             :   Shri Y. K. Sinha

 Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
 together for hearing and disposal.

    Case No.   RTI Filed on   CPIO reply    First appeal       FAO
    137371     20.02.2017        Nil        03.04.2017          Nil
    110598     12.12.2016        Nil        23.01.2017          Nil

 Information sought

and background of the case:

CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/110598 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.12.2016 seeking information regarding notings, action taken and status of letter No. 14058/RTI/DHC/ 485/2016 dated 03.08.2016 sent to the Dist. & Session Judge, Delhi (HQ) by the Delhi High Court, Delhi for taking action on complaint dated 29.12.2015 written by Dr. M C Sharma to Ms. G Rohini, Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. He further sought to know the action taken and status of letter dated 29.08.2016 addressed to Ld. Dist. & Session Judges, Delhi (HQ) with the request to take action on the complaint dated 29.12.2015 that has been considered as PIL by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

Having received no reply from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 23.01.2017 which was not adjudicated therefore he filed the instant second appeal.

The First Appeal was returned under objection since complete documents were not annexed therewith.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Respondent alone is present while the appellant is not present despite advance service of notice of hearing. The respondent states that the RTI application dated 12.12.2016 had not been received at their office and instead another RTI application dated 02.02.2017 was received on 06.02.2017, annexed with the IPO number 27F 550490 dated 05.11.2016, which has also been mentioned to have been filed with RTI application dated 12.12.2016. A copy of the RTI application dated 12.12.2016 is made available to the respondent, upon perusal of which the respondent stated that the same IPO has been mentioned to have been annexed with both the RTI applications dated 12.12.2016 and

02.02.2017, of which the RTI Application dated 02.02.2017 was received and a response duly furnished vide reply dated 04.03.2017, with information received from the actual custodian of information viz. the AO(Judicial), R&I Branch, Central, Tis Hazari Court. Since the same IPO could not have been used as fee for filing both RTI applications, the respondent claimed that possibly the RTI application dated 12.12.2016 was not filed and hence never received in their office.

Decision:

Considering that information as available with the actual custodian of information viz. the AO(Judicial), R&I Branch, Central, Tis Hazari Court, has already been provided vide response dated 04.03.2017, there remains no cause of action to adjudicate in the instant case. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the respondent cannot form a part of adjudication of these proceedings, nor can the proceedings under the RTI Act be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished. Thus as per established legal position, as per numerous decisions of the Courts, the instant proceedings attain finality with the dissemination of available information.

CIC/DSESJ/C/2017/137371 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.02.2017 seeking information regarding month wise Inspection Reports regarding the Central Jail No. 1 to 9, Tihar and Dist. Rohini Jail, Rohini, Delhi during the aforesaid period inspected by Shri Vinay Kumar Khanna, Ld. ASJ, Shri Narottam Kaushal, Ld. ASJ, Spl. Judge-05 (PC Act), ACB in CJ No. 02. Shri Dinesh Kumar Bhatt Ld. ASJ and other judges, orders/directions/instructions/circulars issued by the Competent Authority to Page 2 of 3 the aforesaid Ld. Judges and other Judges to inspect the Central Jails No. 1 to 9, Tihar and Dist. Rohini, Delhi during the aforesaid period.

Having received no reply from the PIO, he filed First Appeal dated 03.04.2017 which was not adjudicated therefore he filed the instant Complaint.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Respondent alone is present while the appellant is not present despite advance service of notice of hearing. Respondent has placed a written submission on record revealing that in response to the RTI application dated 20.02.2017, a letter dated 09.03.2017 was sent by the PIO, informing the complainant that information as sought by him related to inspection reports regarding Central jails No. 1 to 9, Tihar and District Rohini Jail. Such information being confidential in nature disclosure of which is denied due to security reasons. The respondent further substantiated their denial stating that no public purpose will be served by disclosure of such information. This reply dated 09.03.2017, was delivered as per the speed post tracking report enclosed with the submission.

Decision:

Perusal of records and examination of facts of the case reveal that information as available with the respondent, has already been provided vide response dated 09.03.2017. Thus the Commission is of the considered opinion that there remains no cause of action to adjudicate in the instant case. As per established legal position, as held by the Courts in numerous decisions, the CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the RTI Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes. RTI Act, 2005 is designed only for dissemination of available information not for adjudicating inter se dispute/s between parties or to decide the correctness of issues. It is noted that information, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly furnished. Hence the Commission wishes to refrain from making any further observation in this case.

The aforementioned cases are thus disposed off.

Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 3 of 3