Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Srikanth Sreedhar vs Karntaka High Court on 8 September, 2022

                                  के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                              बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली,
                                ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/KRHCB/A/2021/651969

Shri Srikanth Sreedhar                                         ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Jt. Registrar, Karnataka High Court                 ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri Srikanth Y B - Asstt. Curator

Date of Hearing                        :    07.09.2022
Date of Decision                       :    08.09.2022
Chief Information Commissioner         :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on                :   15.07.2021
PIO replied on                          :   21.08.2021
First Appeal filed on                   :   31.08.2021
First Appellate Order on                :   -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on         :   08.11.2021
Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.07.2021 seeking information on the following points:-

Please give me copies of documents from the office of the Registrar (Judicial) of the Karnataka High Court pertaining to the current status of my TWELVE Party-in-Person applications submitted between the dates 23/11/2020 & 04/01/2021 from email id [email protected] to [email protected].

I seek to be Party-in-Person for the 08.08.2019 Karnataka HC Order in the WP by NITK Professor Herbert.

NITK has refused to post on the internet the Fact Finding Committee Report after the death of Anand Pathak, who had the right to approach the NITK Mech. Engg. DAAB for grievance redressal against the FA/FF Grade but was victimized leading to his death. NITK broke several NITK Rules.

The Registrar (Judicial) has violated my Fundamental Right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India by refusing to be Party-in-Person by failing to process my application in a timely manner.

NHRC Diary Nos. 18512/CR/2021 & 76131/CR/2021 link the death of Anand Pathak and the death of an Infant, whose parent was economically backward/sc/st/obc and uneducated.

The SPIO/Jt. Registrar, High Court of Karnataka vide letter 21.08.2021 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.08.2021 seeking the following reliefs:

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the Joint Registrar/SPIO, High Court of Karnataka vide letter dated 25.08.2022 pointing out that the Appellant did not file any First Appeal with respect to the information furnished or denied regarding the queries raised by the Appellant. The Respondent concluded his contentions in the following way:

Hearing is held through virtual means upon serving advanced notice of hearing to both parties. Respondent from the High Court of Karnataka is present for the virtual hearing, while the Appellant has neither attended the hearing despite service of notice in advance nor has he communicated any reason for his absence.

Decision:

Perusal of documents and averments made during hearing indicate that information from available official records as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant by the PIO vide reply dated 21.08.2021. The records of the case reveal that the discrepancy pointed out by Page 2 of 3 the Respondent about RTI application and Second Appeal filed by the Appellant seeking different information is irrefutable.

In addition, the Appellant has chosen not to buttress his appeal despite service of hearing notice and the second appeal filed by him fails to establish any ground for filing of the instant second appeal under the RTI Act.

In the given circumstances, since the information available on record with the public authority stands disseminated, no cause of action subsists under the RTI Act. Hence, the appeal at hand is hereby disposed off with no further direction.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई.

वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3