Central Information Commission
Shri Mahabir Singh vs Supreme Court Of India (Sci) on 8 February, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00419 dated 17.4.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant - Shri Mahabir Singh
Respondent - Supreme Court of India (SCI)
Decision announced: 8.2.2010
Facts:
By an application of 25.3.08 Shri Mahabir Singh of Nangal Raya, New Delhi applied to CPIO, Addl. Registrar, Supreme Court of India seeking the following information:
"1. Please supply the certified copy of information sent by the Monitoring Committee to the CPIO/ Addl. Registrar, Hon'ble S/C of India, (As per Annexure-I) 'the decision of the Monitoring Committee for not permitting the benefit of proviso to section 14 of the DDA Act, 1957 because of additions to you premises after September, 1962 also inform the date of not permitting for the same.' (Photocopy of the letter Dy. 654/RTI/2007/SCI dated January 12, 2008 annexed) Annexure-I.
2. Please supply the certified copy of action taken on my letter dated 4.2.2008 by the Monitoring Committee addressed to the Members of the Monitoring committee. Annexure-II.
3. Please supply the certified copy of action taken on my letter dated 16.2.2008 by the Registrar, Supreme Court of India addressed to the Registrar, Supreme Court of India. Annexure-III.
4. Please inform the procedure for knowing of the next date of hearing in Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Please inform the procedure for fixing the date of next hearing, applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases/IA and also inform the next date of hearing in my IA number 2159-2160 of 2007.
6. Please inform the procedure for taking certified copies of application/ replies/ proceedings/ judgments/ orders in any disposed off and yet to be disposed off cases/ PIL. Also inform, who is eligible for the same.
7. Please clarify whether I can write a letter to the Chief Justice of India directly. If no, please inform the authority to whom it can be addressed.
8. I want to bring some drastic problems faced by general public, to the notice of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but I 1 am unable to hire an advocate. Kindly inform me the procedure for this.
9. Please supply the certified copies of the guidelines framed for extending the benefit of proviso to section 14 of the DD Act, 1957 submitted in Hon'ble Supreme Court. Annexure- IV.
10. Please clarify whether Monitoring Committee have any right to ask verbally from MCD for making any inspection/ sealing of premises/ demolishing of premises etc. as asked verbally in my case. Annexure-V. If yes, please supply the certified copies of rights given to the Monitoring Committee by the Supreme Court of India."
To this Shri Mahabir Singh received an initial response of 1.4.08 from CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. Registrar, transferring the application to the Dy. Commissioner (West), MCD leading appellant Shri Mahabir Singh to move a complaint before us pleading as follows:
"CPIO has misleaded (sic) the complainant by transferring the application to MCD (may be treated under section 18 (1) (e). Prayer or relief sought: -
It is, therefore, most humbly & respectfully prayed that the CPIO may be ordered to reply all the questions as per the nature of question and penalized under section 18 (1) (e) as per the Right to Information Act, 2005 in the interest of justice."
In response of 18.909 to our complaint notice of 28.8.09, Superintending Engineer (WZ-I) and PIO MCD has attached a letter of 10.9.09 from JEP (WZ) which was forwarded to appellant Shri Mahabir Singh with the following information:
"The information required at S. No. 1 & 2 pertains to the Monitoring Committee and the information required at S. No. 3 to 10 pertains to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. None of the aforesaid information pertains to the Building Department, West Zone."
Collaterally, in a response of 17.4.08 CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. Registrar, SCI while referring to the reference made to the MCD for part of the information sought, has provided a pointwise response to appellant Shri Mahabir Singh, as below:
"1. The information supplied by Member, Monitoring Committee is in two pages and can be obtained on payment of fee of Rs. 4/-.
2. It is for the Monitoring Committee to reply.2
3. The matter is pending before the Hon'ble Court.
4. The status of the case and also the next date of hearing can be accessed on the Supreme Court website www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in. A party in person is given notice of hearing of the case in writing, which is sent by Registered Post. A party who is represented by an Advocate may contact his advocate regarding the status of his matter.
5. You may refer to Supreme Court of India, Practice & Procedure 'A' Handbook of Information' Second Revised Edition. The matters are also listed in pursuance of orders of the Hon'ble Court. The next date of hearing of the matter is 7.7.2006.
6. You may refer to order XII Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
7. In judicial matters parties are required to file their cases/ pleadings in accordance with Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
8. Please refer to Supreme Court Rules, 1966. A party can also approach the Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, 109, Lawyer's Chamber, Supreme Court compound for legal aid and advise.
9. Any party may obtain certified copies of the judicial record under Order XII Supreme Court Rules, 1966. Request under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not acceded to in case of judicial record.
10. The Monitoring Committee has been appointed by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 24.3.2006 to oversee the implementation of the law and it is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of duties of the CPIO, Supreme Court of India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to interpret the law, opine, comment and advise on matters."
Complying with answers received regarding point 1, appellant Shri Mahabir Singh paid the necessary amount and obtained, through a letter of 7.5.08 from CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar, a copy of the report of the Monitoring Committee of 7.1.08 in which, after referring to the directions of the Supreme Court of India, the Member, Monitoring Committee has submitted as follows:
"The Monitoring Committee has been following the above directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, it is the MCD which has to give copies of all documents required by the applicant. Further the applicant has already approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging the decision of the Monitoring Committee not permitting the benefit of proviso to sec. 14 of the DDA Act, 1957 because of additions to his premises after September, 1962 and the matter is yet to be disposed off by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."3
Shri Mahabir Singh had in the meantime moved an appeal on 5.5.08 before the Registrar, Supreme Court of India on the following grounds:
"1. For the question no. 1 of RTI application, the CPIO/Addl.
Registrar has informed to deposit Rs. 4/- for obtaining the information of 2 pages. The appellant has deposited the same but the information is still awaited for. The appellant asked the date for not permitting the benefit of proviso to section 14, but the CPIO/ Addl. Registrar has not informed the date.
2. In question no. 2, the appellant asked to supply the certified copy of action taken on my letter dated 4.2.2008 by the Monitoring Committee addressed to the Members of the Monitoring Committee but the CPIO replied that it is for the Monitoring Committee to reply. It is not understood from the reply of CPIO that whether the reply to the above asked question ahs to be given by Monitoring Committee itself or the CPIO has to answer after collecting the information from Monitoring Committee. Even then, the reply of the same is still awaited for. May be treated as no reply.
3. In question no. 3, appellant asked to supply the certified copy of action taken on my letter dated 16.2.2008 by the Registrar5, Supreme Court of India addressed to the Registrar, Supreme Court of India but the CPIO has replied that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Court while the action taken by the Registrar was demanded for and not the status of the letter dated 16.2.2008. May be treated as no reply.
4. In question no. 7, appellant asked to clarify whether I can write a letter to the Chief Justice of India directly. If no, please inform the authority to whom it can be addressed but the CPIO has replied that in judicial matters parties are required to file their cases/ pleadings in accordance with Supreme Court Replies, 1966, which is not satisfactory. The question is very clear and CPIO had to reply in YES or NO and if no, he had to inform the address of the authority. May be treated as no reply.
5. In question no. 9, appellant asked to please supply the certified copies of the guidelines framed for extending the benefit of proviso to section 14 of the DD Act, 1957 submitted in Hon'ble Supreme Court but the CPIO has replied Any party may obtain certified copies of the judicial record under order XII Supreme Court Rules, 1966. Request under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not acceded to in case of judicial record. In this regard, CPIO could supply the certified copy of the office copy, which was submitted in Supreme Court by the Monitoring Committee in Report no. 42. May be treated as no reply. Moreover, the appellant has already applied for the certified copy in 4 Supreme Court on 30.10.2007 (copy of receipt enclosed) but the certified copy is still awaited for.
6. In Question no. 10 the appellant asked to clarify whether Monitoring Committee have any right to ask verbally from MCD for making any inspection/ sealing of premises/ demolishing of premises etc as asked verbally in my case. If ye, please supply the certified copies of rights given to the Monitoring Committee by the Supreme Court of India but the CPIO has replied the Monitoring Committee has been appointed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 24.3.2006 to oversee the implementation of the law and it is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of duties of the CPIO, Supreme Court of India under the Right to Information At, 2005 to interpret the law, opine, comment and advise on the matter. In this regard it is to say that if the matter was beyond the jurisdiction of the CPIO, it could be transferred to the Monitoring Committee to reply because the Right & Duties to all the Public Authorities are always given in writing at the time of their appointment/ constitution and the copy of the same is always kept in record. Hence may be treated as misleaded/ no reply."
This was followed by further representation of 19.5.08 from appellant Shri Mahabir Singh, in response to the notice for hearing, in which he has elucidated "some facts for consideration" in the appeal, as below:
"1. In reply to question No. 1, CPIO did not mention the date on which the Monitoring Committee did not permit for benefit of proviso to Section 14 of DD Act.
2. CPIO did not transfer the part of application under section 5 (4) read with section 5 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, to Monitoring Committee regarding Question No. 2, if as he replied, it was to be replied by the Monitoring Committee.
3. CPIO did not supply the certified copies of action taken on my letter dated 16.2.2008 addressed to the Registrar, SC of India as asked for in question No. 3 the appellant did not ask the status of the letter.
4. In place of replying simply in YES or No (Question No. 7), and to give name and address of the authority if, reply was in NO, CPIO quoted the reference of Supreme Court Rules, 1966. And if he mentioned so, he could supply the photocopies of the pages pertaining to the question and could inform the fees of pages of the information as he has already informed regarding question No. 1.
5. Regarding question No. 9 it does not remain only judicial matter when the copy of the same is made available to a Public Authority, as guidelines. CPIO could supply the copy of office copy, kept as guidelines with the Monitoring 5 Committee, of the same. Moreover, I have already applied for the same in Supreme Court of India but there is no response for SC of India till date.
6. Regarding question No. 10, CPIO could transfer the part of application to the Monitoring Committee under section 5 (4) read with section 5 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005 if he felt the matter was beyond his jurisdiction."
In his order of 27.5.08 Shri Sunil Thomas, after recording that "Even though notice was issued to the appellant for personal hearing, the appellant remained absent", has gone on to order as follows:
"Item Nos. 1, 2 and 10 are in respect of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per order dated 24.3.2006 to oversee the implementation of law. By the impugned order CPIO has transferred the application under section 6 c with Sec (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Dy. Commissioner (West), Municipal Corporation of Delhi to answer the same. In fact, the copy of the letter dated 7.1.2008 received from the Monitoring Committee has already been sent to the appellant along with letter dated 7.5.2008.
So far as item nos. 4 to 7 and 9 are concerned CPIO has informed the appellant that the appellant being a party to the litigation he can obtain the necessary information in accordance with Supreme Court Rules, 1966. A counsel in writ Petition (C) No. 4677/85 represents the appellant. In respect of a pending case CPIO is not expected to furnish information.
Item No. 3 is in respect of the letter of the appellant dated 16.2.2008. The said letter is in respect of the publication of Notice effect in the newspaper in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in IA No. 22 in the writ petition referred to above. Since the appellant being a party to the above litigation eh is not expected to address the Registrar. Since the letter referred to above is in respect of a pending case no action was taken on the same and it was lodged.
In answer to item no. 8 CPIO has informed the appellant that party can also approach Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee for legal aid and advice. Since the appellant is party to the pending litigation eh has to obtain the necessary information either from his counsel or in accordance with Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and CPIO is not expected to furnish the same. It is not correct to say that no reply has been given by the CPIO in respect of item nos. 2, 3 and 7. CPIO is also not expected to give any legal opinion especially in respect of the power or right of the monitoring Committee as mentioned in item no. 10. On a perusal of the 6 impugned order I find no error and there is no sufficient grounds to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this appeal and it is only to be dismissed.' Appellant Shri Mahabir Singh's prayer before us in second appeal is as below:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the PIO may kindly be ordered to answer every question/ information sought/ demanded by the appellant as per nature of question of the application/ appeal an punished under section 20 (1) in the light of Section 18 (1) (e) as per RTI Act, 2005 in the interest of justice."
In this appeal the grounds are specifically described as below:
"As per advice of CPIO, I applied for the certified copies of the guidelines on 8.7.2008 but I had received the CPIO of Report No. 42 on 22.8.2008 and not the guidelines as applied for.
CIC has already made a decision in CIC/WB/Appeal.2007/00047 that the Monitoring Committee is a Public Authority under section 6 (1) of the RTI Act and CPIO either may deal with himself or refer to the Monitoring Committee under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act.
The guidelines framed for extending the benefits of proviso to section 14 of DD Act was submitted in the Supreme Court by the Monitoring Committee and Monitoring Committee must have the office copy of the same. My question No. 9 could also be transferred under section 5 (4) of the Monitoring Committee and the certified copy of the office copy could be supplied to me.
I asked in question no. 10 to clarify whether Monitoring Committee have any right to ask verbally from MCD for making any inspection etc but the reply of CPIO was it is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of duties of the CPIO to interpret the law, opine, comment and advise on matters. It could be transferred under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the monitoring Committee for reply.' Shri Mahabir Singh also submitted written arguments, which were taken on record. In this he has in fact pleaded for the transfer of his request to the Monitoring Committee u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act accusing Appellate Authority, Supreme Court of India of having sought to shield the CPIO. The issue, therefore, now lies on the disclosure of information stated to be held by the Monitoring Committee.
7DECISION NOTICE We have already held in our decision notice in appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00047 Shri Mahabir Singh vs. Dy. Commissioner (West), MCD, announced on 11.1.2007, as follows:
"So far as the substance of the second appeal before us is concerned, we find that the only questions remaining unanswered to appellant Shri Mahabir Singh's satisfaction are those concerning the Monitoring Committee set up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In the normal course, therefore, the answers to these questions should have been sought by forwarding the application to the PIO of the Monitoring Committee, and if none such exists separately to the CPIO Addl. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, for obtaining the requisite response. This has not been done thus far. Because this is the first case of its kind and the MCD would not have understandably had experience of working the RTI Act in this manner, we do not regard this failure of reference as an infraction of sec. 6(3). However, since the Monitoring Committee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is in fact the "concerned public authority" u/s 6(1), Shri Mahabir Singh appellant is advised to move a fresh application before the CPIO and Addl. Registrar, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India who may either deal with it himself or refer it to the Monitoring Committee u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act."
That has to be read with our decision notice in appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00725 & 726 announced on 5.11.09 in case Shri Mahabir Singh vs. Supreme Court of India. We have in these cases found as below:
"The decision of the Supreme Court of India in constituting the Monitoring Committee rules explicitly as follows:
"In order to oversee the implementation of the Law, namely sealing of offending premises in terms of the letter and spirit of this Court's directions, it is necessary to appoint a Monitoring Committee instead of leaving any discretion with the officers of the MCD. Accordingly, we appoint a Monitoring Committee comprising MR. K. J. Rao, Former Advisor to Election Commissioner, Mr. Bhure Lal, Chairman, E. P. C. A. And Maj. General (retd.) Som Jhingan."
As emphasised by us above, the objective of the Monitoring Committee, therefore, clearly is the question of sealing of commercial premises. All other powers exercised by this Committee including on issue of partial commercial use of some roads, mixed land use to the extent of 25% of the permissible ground area together with regulations regarding the same and the plans in a zone with regard to conformity of use of land and building all 8 flow from this specific objective. The ruling of the Supreme Court of India, therefore, in its order of 23-7-07 in light of the submissions of the Monitoring Committee, which were also perused by us in the hearing, leaves little room for ambiguity. This requires that in fact all documents pertaining to or leading up to the question of sealing are to be made available not by the Committee but by the MCD."
In the present case, however, the question is not one "pertaining to or leading up to the question of sealing", but that of guidelines, if any. In overseeing the implementation of the law, which as described by CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar, in his response to the RTI application is "beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of CPIO, Supreme Court of India under RTI Act", but unlike the assumption made by the CPIO, this is not a question seeking interpretation but a copy of the authority exercised by the Monitoring Committee contained in any guidelines. In this very context, the question of appellant Shri Mahabir Singh is elucidated in his letter of 19.5.08 to the Appellate Authority, Supreme Court of India, seeking a clarification on the report submitted by the Monitoring Committee to the SCI. It can, therefore, be only the Member of the Monitoring Committee who is the author of this letter of 7.1.08 that can provide the necessary reply, if there is one.
In consequence, we decide as follows:
1. Insofar as the complaint of Shri Mahabir Singh of 15.4.08 is concerned, protesting the transfer of the application, we find that it is only the part of the application that has been transferred to MCD, which has also responded to appellant Shri Mahabir Singh. This complaint is more on procedure than on substance, which latter stands addressed in the appeal in SCI. Hence the complaint is infructuous and is filed.
2. Insofar as the appeal is concerned, it is clear that the information to be supplied either by the MCD or by the SCI, has already been supplied to appellant Shri Mahabir Singh by SCI. The only remaining information to be supplied is that which the Monitoring Committee can only supply. For this reason, the application is now transferred to the CPIO, Monitoring Committee (Constituted by the Supreme Court of India), Core 6A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 who will provide to Shri 9 Mahabir Singh such information, as it holds within the time frame mandated by Sec. 7(1) of RTI Act 2005."
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 8.2.2010 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.
(D. C. Singh) Asstt. Registrar 8.2.2010 10