Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Smt. Dhanwanti Devi vs Supreme Court Of India on 18 April, 2011

                     Central Information Commission, New Delhi
                          File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000985­SM
                  Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)




Date of hearing                       :                                     18 April 2011


Date of decision                      :                                     18 April 2011



Name of the Appellant                 :    Smt. Dhanwati Devi
                                           W/o. Shri M L Gupta, 
                                           II­F/54, Nehru Nagar,
                                           Ghaziabad - 201 001.


Name of the Public Authority          :    The Central Public Information Officer,
                                           Supreme Court of India,
                                           New Delhi.



        The Appellant was represented by Shri S.K. Goel and Shri Raj Bir Singh.

        On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:­
        (i)     Smt. Smita Vats Sharma, CPIO,
        (ii)    Smt. Asha Ahuja, Br. Officer,
        (iii)   Shri Devadatt Kamat, Advocate



Chief Information Commissioner                 :        Shri Satyananda Mishra



2. Both   the   parties   were   present   during   the   hearing   and   made   their  submissions.

3. The Appellant had addressed a representation to the Chief Justice of  India   earlier   and   had   wanted   to   know   about   the   action   taken   on   that  CIC/WB/A/2009/000985­SM representation through her RTI application. The CPIO had informed her that her  representation   could   not   be   considered   as   a   PIL   as   it   did   not   satisfy   the  conditions laid down under the relevant regulations and was, therefore, filed.  Even the Appellate Authority endorsed this decision.

4. During the hearing, the representative of the Appellant submitted that a  house belonging to the Appellant had been razed during the Emergency and  that the Appellant had been approaching various authorities to get a substitute  house or plot of land in lieu of that. The Right to Information is not the route to  get  this  done,  the  RTI  Act  only  guarantees  information,  not  necessarily  the  redressal of any grievances. The Rspondents submitted that they did not have  any further information on the matter other than the fact that the representation  addressed to the Chief Justice had simply been filed as it did not meet the  conditions of a PIL. We tend to agree with this submission. Obviously, there is  no more information in this regard to be disclosed.

5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner 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.

(Vijay Bhalla) CIC/WB/A/2009/000985­SM Deputy Registrar CIC/WB/A/2009/000985­SM