Central Information Commission
B Raman vs Supreme Court Of India on 15 March, 2017
',. l
. fn-ther Centxat" Informatibn. C6mrn ission -^ "
lr
at
New Delhi
Fire No: ctc/ sM t At zofi/ooogs-lo
ORDER
. Background 1' The Applicant, through his RTl-apptication dated 11.06.2010, fited with the cptO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, wanted to obtain certajn advice from the legnt services authority in respect of certain immovable properties, which according to him. belonged to one Late Bella Gowder S/o Nanja Gowder at Kotagiri Viilage in the Nitgiris District ramir Nadu, and was mortgaged by shri Indra Kumar s/o late srri Ramamswamy-the younger son of rate shri Beria Gowder-for perrorming the marriage ceremonies of his 4 sisters as alsc for offering the dowries. It was his rase that now the sisters of Shri Indra Kumar, after several years of their rnarriage, have claimed their shares in the above family property of Shri Indra Kurnar and have also ettempted to take legal action for parbtion ard possession of said property. lhe Applicant's RTI-query reads as follonrs;
"....whether the sister of India Kunar can claim their shares after a long lapx utd after their marriages and whether the case is not barred by timitation. It may aM E tle ancestral property inherid by stated whether they are entitled to any shares in Indra Kumar who has already spent a constderab9 amount towards the marriw af ils sisters and the dowry o{lered to tlwn-' The PIo, suprerne court Legal. services to whom the above RTI-
committee, application was transferred bythe cplo, supreme court, on zl,062010, informedthe Applicant that he is seeking advice/opinr:an oF the plo in respect of cqrtain grievarre which cannot be given under the RTi-Act. He. however, advised the Applicant to approach the appropriate brurn for rerdressal of his grievance.iThe Appesde Authority, on 29.09.2010, in response to the Appellant's r't-appeal, endorsfd ttrc PIO's vieni. The Appellant, thereafter, filed the present petition trefore the commission on 25'10.2010 stating that tire Appetlate Authority, rather than dismissing tris lr- appeal to him, could very wel[ have informed him about the forum to be approached by hini for seeking such adviceorcould,have transferred his request to that forum. llr accordingly sought necessary direction in the rnatter.
Decasion 2, It. is undisputablsthat what the Appellant, i.s. seekrog"herein.is a 'legal advice' and that he has not solicited any rnateriil information available in Respond€nts' record 75 defined under Section 2(f) read yrtth Section 2(n ofthe RTI-Act.
Respondents with In view of the above, no disclosure obligation can be cast on the respect to the present RTl-application' 7he appeal is' therefore' rciected' present appeal that he may be Nevertheless, considering the Appellant's request in the informed about the appropriate ' forum for seeking help in the matter' the representatives of the Respondents, on being asked by the Commission' have mentioned that the Appellant may approach the District Legal Services Cornmirtee, under the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act' 1987' closed' The appeal is disposed of accordinglv and the case I .il/"*' tai.LPd""bx-'t)----
Information Commissioner
numenti{ileortrue coPY
(G.Subra/ranian)
DePutY
fegistrar
l, Shri B. Raman
4i 104, Sackatha,
Aravenu Post- 643 201,
Kotagiri Taluk,
The Nilgiris District'
Tamil Nadu
The Aooellate AuthoritY
Supreme Court Legal Services CommiRee' #108, LauiYers'Chamer, R.K.lain Chamber'Block, PO Wing, Supreme Court CornPound, New Delhi The Public Information Officer Supteme Court Legal Services Committee' #108. Lawyers Chamer, n.r. liin Ciamber Block, Po VJing, Supreme Court ComPound, New Delhi 4, Olficer in charge, NIC