Central Information Commission
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sahay vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 November, 2011
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/WB/C/2010/000005SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (18)
Date of hearing : 30 November 2011
Date of decision : 30 November 2011
Name of the Complainant :
Shri Ajay Kumar Sahay,
C/o Shri T.H Sahay,
Baba Bimal Lane,
Behind Bangla Mukhi Mandir,
Rambagh, P.O. Ramna,
Distt. Muzaffarpur - 842 002.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Administrative Tribunal,
Patna Bench,
88/A, Srikrishna Nagar,
Patna - 800 001.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Alok Kumar Khan, CPIO
(ii) Shri Sudhir Kumar Jha, ACPIO
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Complainant was present in the Muzaffarpur studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present in the Patna studio. We heard their submissions.
3. The Complainant had wanted to know about the action taken on some representation he had made to the CAT. The CPIO informed him that his representation addressed to the Chairman, Principal Bench, CAT had been duly considered and that that Bench had intimated their response to him. CIC/WB/C/2010/000011SM
4. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that the Complainant had filed a petition before the CAT which had been disposed of by a proper judicial order. Aggrieved by that order, it seems, he has been not only representing to various authorities but also seeking all types of information under the RTI. According to the Respondents, a judicial order passed by the CAT cannot obviously be reviewed or set aside by an administrative action. The only remedy available to the aggrieved person in such a case is to go before the competent authority or a court of law to which, under the law, either an appeal or a writ would lie.
5. However, if an aggrieved person keeps sending representations against a judicial order and, later, as in this case, seeks to know about the action taken, all that the CPIO can inform him is about whatever actual action the public authority might have taken in the matter, such as, filing the representation or ignoring the representation etc. Therefore, in this case also, the CPIO can inform him about whatever action the CAT had taken on the specific representation mentioned by the Complainant. We direct the CPIO to do so within 10 working days of receiving this order.
6. During the hearing, it was also brought to our notice that the Complainant had been filing numerous RTI applications, all relating to the order passed by the CAT on the judicial side and some of these had already come up before the CIC in the past. We would think that this is not a responsible use of the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. If a court or tribunal passes any order in a matter, that order speaks for itself. If aggrieved, one must take recourse to the remedy available under the law. Seeking a review, revision, interpretation or clarification of the order under the Right to Information (RTI) CIC/WB/C/2010/000011SM Act is untenable. The expression information has been defined in the Right to Information (RTI) Act in a particular manner and that does not include any of these. It would be useful for the information seeker to keep this in mind.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
8. 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) Deputy Registrar CIC/WB/C/2010/000011SM