Central Information Commission
Mrjagmohan Singh Raju vs Cabinet Secretariat on 15 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110067
Tel : +911126186535
Appeal No. CIC/RK/A/2016/001218
Appellant: Mr. Jagmohan Singh Raju
R/o Flt GG, Cambrae Hall, NO. 72, Dr. P.V. Cherian Crescent
Road, Egmore, Chennai600105.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
Cabinet Secretariat,
RTI Cell,
Rashtrapati Bhavan,
New Delhi110001.
Date of Hearing: 15.06.2016
Dated of Decision: 15.06.2016
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 14.12.2015 seeking information pertaining to action taken on his representation date 29.06.2015 regarding wrongful exclusion from the panel for appointment to the post of Additional Secretary.
1
2. The CPIO responded on 04.01.2016. The appellant filed first appeal on 11.01.2016 with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA response is not on record. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 24.02.2016 before the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing.
4. The appellant stated that he was seeking copies of relevant records along with reasons recorded that have led to his nonempanelment to the post of Additional Secretary in the Central Government. The appellant stated that the CPIO refused to provide the requested information on the grounds that it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act.
5. The appellant stated that as per the Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, decision of council of Ministers, the reasons thereof , and the material on the basis of which decision were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over. The appellant stated that in the instant case Cabinet Committee on Appointment (ACC) has already taken a final decision hence, the sought for information should have been provided to him.
6. The respondent stated that the disclosure of ACC note is subjudice in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in five LPAs viz (LPA 347/2010, LPA 436/2014, LPA 568/2014, LPA 569/2014 and LPA 570/2014). The Hon'ble High Court has held that the order passed by the Central Information Commission shall remain stayed (Order dated 01.09.2014). The respondent stated that such issues should be decided after final verdict of the Hon'ble High Court otherwise it led to multiple litigation in the Hon'ble High Court.
7. The appellant stated that the stay passed by the Hon'ble High Court in other cases does not apply in his matter.
2
Observation
8. Since the matter relates to disclosure of ACC note and is subjudice in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it would be judicious to await the final outcome of the pending matters.
Decision
9. The Commission is of the view that it is in interest of the parties to wait for final verdict of the Hon'ble High Court to avoid multiple litigation.
Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy ( S.C. Sharma ) Deputy Registrar 3