Central Information Commission
G. V. Malwad & V. N. Malwad vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 18 December, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग, मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOLAF/A/2022/655117
CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/643385
CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/655134
CIC/SCOFI/A/2022/655101
CIC/SCOFI/A/2022/667230
Shri G.V Malwad & V.N Malwad ... अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, Department of Legal Affairs ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
2. PIO, Bar Council Of India
3. PIO, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing : 14.12.2023
Date of Decision : 18.12.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
655117 26.06.2022 03.09.2022 07.08.2022 - 17.10.2022
643385 18.05.2022 23.07.2022 19.06.2022 - 08.08.2022
655134 26.06.2022 - 07.08.2022 - 17.10.2022
655101 19.06.2022 04.08.2022 07.09.2022 22.09.202 17.10.2022
2
667230 26.09.2022 16.11.2022 16.11.2022 14.12.202 19.12.2022
2
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/ DOLAF/A/2022/655117 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.06.2022 seeking the following information:-
"(i) Subject matter of information: News appeared in local Marathi newspaper, Dainik Marathwada entitled as "Adv Pratik Irpatgire appointed Page 1 of 13 as Central Governments Pleader" by Dept of Justice and Ministry of Law in the first week of March 2022 this year.
First week of March 2022 is very significant as his father Adv Avinash Irpatgire was placed on disciplinary trial at Hon'ble Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, Mumbai and in the same week he has been given "Clean chit" on war footing by legally insane under McNaughton Rule Mr Gajanan Baba Chavan maniac individual acting as Advocate-Chairman based on only one hearing of 40 minutes without going through total 1296 pages of our DC complaint. In fact, what is surprising is that his father was absent in this only one hearing but still he received favor, how? Under whose pressure?
The significance of his son's appointment is none other than an act of "farewell" "appease" to repair damage control and balance mentally his father not to leak those names who are currently in Government. Another significance is appointment directly at Hon'ble Bombay High Court without having any experience in courtroom practice raises eyebrows on the role of the Central Government in our case too, however, we have coined a better word for that "political party in Government".
Among many charges of serious professional misconduct on his father, one charge was related to "fake signatures" "no signatures" and filing "forged affidavit" in instigated matter of SARFAESI Act 2002 to loot public funds from State Bank of India which in turn might have also benefitted "Martya and his three sons" from "Ambajogai & Thane" who began fake case against us at DRT Aurangabad in the year 2013 by firing bullets from the shoulders of SBI bank officers and in turn laundered money to grow their businesses from SBI hand-in-gloves with SBI bank lawyer Adv Prakash Paithankar and our lawyers and their relatives Adv Avinash Irpatgire, Adv Uddhav Momale. How? by instigation of matter via misusing provisions of SARFAESI Act. Who then also benefitted Aurangabad based four Directors in the firm M/s Piyush Infratech Pvt Ltd including fifth "dhotarwala politician" Mr Haribhau Bagade.
1) Please provide details of provisions of Law or criteria his appointment has been made.
2) Please provide a certified copy of his appointment letter showing the date of appointment, name of the authority and any other documentation like recommendations given by any.
3) Please provide details of provisions required to be complied by any Advocate for getting appointed as "Central Governments Pleader".
4) Please provide details of law practicing experience in years required by any Advocate for getting appointed as "Central Governments Pleader".
5) Please provide details of notification published as advertisement in newspaper for recruitment of "Central Governments Pleader".
6) Please provide details of all the recruitment procedure done before appointing him as "Central Governments Pleader" including details of interview, details of authority who took his interview.
Page 2 of 137) Please provide details of compliance done by him under BCI Rule 49, Rule 52 before accepting this appointment with Hon'ble Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) at Bombay.
8) Please provide details of his credentials he submitted at the time of joining the appointment.
9) Please provide details of salary offered, along with his service book record copy.
10) any other information available in any form with DoJ-MoLaw as regards to above points of information."
The CPIO/Assistant Legal Adviser, Judicial, Department of Legal Affairs, vide letter dated 28.08.2022 replied as under:-
"With reference to the subject above, it is stated that aforesaid applicant has sought information under RTI Act, 2005 in respect of following points, inter- alia:
(i) Provide details of compliance done by Pratik Avinash Irpatgire under BCI Rule 49, Rule 52 before accepting this appointment with Hon'ble Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa(BCMG) at Bombay.
(ii) Provide details of his credentials he submitted at the time of joining the appointment.
2. In respect of point (i) above, please provide your inputs.
3. In respect of point (ii) under para 1 above, please provide your concerned to provide the credentials at the time of joining the appointment to the RTI applicant.
4. Expedite action in this regard is solicited as information in respect of the above two points is to be furnished to the applicant under RTI Act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.08.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri J S Dhanju - CPIO, DLA and Shri Aakash - Asstt.(Legal) were present during the hearing.
The Respondent present during hearing submitted a reply dated 26.08.2022 which had been sent through online mode to the Appellant. It is a point wise reply containing accurate and adequate information, answering each of the queries raised by the Appellant. The Respondent has also submitted a copy of the First Appellate Authority's speaking order dated 13.10.2022 providing additional information to the Appellant.Page 3 of 13
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case at hand reveals that appropriate information from available records of the public authority, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act had been duly supplied to the Appellant, though copies of the same had not been submitted with the Appeal. The Appellant has chosen not attend the hearing today to buttress his appeal. However, it is evident that appropriate reply had already been provided by the Respondent, in terms of the provisions of the Act. Hence, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(2) CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/643385 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.05.2022 seeking the following information:-
"(i) Subject matter of information: We would like to refer to the email complaint dated 26-June-2021 filed against Single Advocate Member, Mr Vasant D. Salunke from BCMG, Aurangabad who allowed his "voter Advocate" to physically attack by using foul language to beat DC complainant no. 01 in DC No. 51 of 2020 during 7th "preliminary" hearing.
In fact, Mr Salunke was conducting hearings; in violation of Part VII BCIs own Rule 33, to conduct hearings "on camera". But to that also almost 318 calendar days passed no action taken neither by BCMG at Bombay nor even by BCI, New Delhi.
The same email complaint was also filed with the Hon'ble Chief Justice Office, Bombay High Court at Bombay to which we filed RTI No. 206. To that in reply, CPIO informed us that the said complaint has been forwarded to the Full House of BCMG at Bombay for further necessary action on 05-August-2021 vide O.W.NO.4844 to which again 280 calendar days passed no action taken by BCMG at Bombay.
Now we have no option but to file Mr Salunke's complaint to BCI under Resolution passed on 03.06.2020 in Council Meeting before moving to file one more petition in Hon'ble Supreme Court against both respondents BCMG and BCI for non-action, misinformation, and misdirection, a case of moral turpitude, misbehaviour, misconduct of concerned officers of BCMG and BCI in "composite negligence" as well as "intentional negligence" being sued for "joint tortfeasor" activities.
1) Please provide certified copy BCI Resolution passed on 03.06.2020 in Council Meeting.
2) Please provide details of procedure to file complaint to BCI of Elected Single Advocate Members of State Bar Councils.
3) any other information available in any form with BCI as regards to above point of information."
Page 4 of 13The CPIO, Bar Council of India, vide letter dated 23.07.2022 replied as under:-
"As regard to query 1 and 3 You have sought certified copies of BCI resolution passed on 3.6.2020 in the Council meeting. The information sought by you is vague in nature as you did not mention the subject matter, Item Number and date of representation, if any and hence in absence of these particulars no information can be provided.
As regard to query 2 The complaint against an advocate can be filed under section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 on the ground of professional or other misconduct. The complaint should be accompanied by an affidavit and requisite fee as prescribed by the respective State Bar Councils and it should be filed before the State Bar Council where the Advocate is enrolled."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
The Respondent has sent written submission dated 12.12.2023 reiterating the response dated 23.07.2022.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri J R Sharma- Addl. Secretary and Shri Girish were present during the hearing.
The Respondent present during hearing contended that reply in terms of the RTI Act had been sent to the Appellant. He explained that the BCI Resolutions are composite documents which address a number of issues. Hence, each Resolution is a comprehensive and voluminous document. Since the Appellant failed to specify any subject matter, Item Number and date of representation, information could not be provided to him on the point number 1 of the RTI application.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case at hand reveals that appropriate information from available records of the public authority, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress his appeal.Page 5 of 13
In the given circumstances, since information has already been provided to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the Act, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(3) CIC/ BCOIN/A/2022/655134 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.06.2022 seeking the following information:-
"(i) Subject matter of information: We would like to refer to the RTI No. 209 in which BCI Resolution dated 03.06.2020 was sought by us which is not yet given by concerned staff from Council Department, as of today, 36 calendar days passed and also we would like to refer to five points in email dated 15-March-2022 and 03-April-2022 sent to Revision Department for technical know-how but not replied until today, as of today, 101 calendar days passed.
We have decided to file criminal police complaint under Section 120B IPC against all staff members involved from BCI for doing our harassment so that Advocates and Single Advocate Members from BCMG will get enough time to kill us "naturally" so that cases filed by us against them will get automatically closed.
There are likely higher chances that these staff members might be accepting bribe from "Martya and his three sons" from "Ambajogai & Thane"
who began fake case against us at DRT Aurangabad in the year 2013 by firing bullets from the shoulders of SBI bank officers and in turn laundered money to grow their businesses from SBI hand-in-gloves with SBI bank lawyer Adv Prakash Paithankar and our lawyers and their relatives Adv Avinash Irpatgire, Adv Uddhav Momale. How? by instigation of matter via misusing provisions of SARFAESI Act. Who then also benefitted Aurangabad based four Directors in the firm M/s Piyush Infratech Pvt Ltd including fifth "dhotarwala politician" Mr Haribhau Bagade. No BCI Staff should forget that they are bounded by their applicable service rules whether CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964, (CCA) Rules 1965 and or AIS (Conduct) Rules 1968, (DA) Rules 1969 or any other equivalents and they must not take part in wrong-doings of their "political bosses" who landed them jobs in BCI to protect "them" and their "Advocates" and co.
1) Please provide details of total number of staff working in Council Department of BCI along with their names, designation, contact details and their powers-statutory duties and functions.
2) Please provide details of that staff member in Council Department who is responsible for providing information under RTI such as BCI Resolution 03.06.2020.Page 6 of 13
3) Please provide details of total number of staff working in Revision Department of BCI along with their names, designation, contact details and their powers-statutory duties and functions.
4) Please provide details of that staff member in Revision Department who replied to our email on 15-March-2022.
5) Please provide details of that staff member in Revision Department who had statutory duty to reply to five points in email dated 15-March-2022 and 03-April-2022.
6) Please provide information regarding service rules applicable to staff members of both Departments of BCI.
7) Please provide information regarding name of the Scrutiny Officer from Revision Department who scrutinizes and draws defects, if any, in filed Revision petitions.
8) Please provide information regarding details of concerned Vigilance Office such as name of the vigilance authority, contact details such as telephone number, mobile number, official address, email etc. to which staff members from both department of BCI are bound by their service rules.
9) any other information available in any form with BCI as regards to above point of information."
Having not received a response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.08.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Respondent-JS, CPIO has sent written submission dated 12.12.2023 stating that PIO had replied to the RTI application, through online mode on 17.08.2022, copy whereof was annexed with the submission.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri J R Sharma- Addl. Secretary and Shri Girish were present during the hearing.
The Respondent placed reliance on the written submission contending that the PIO had sent the Appellant, online reply dated 17.08.2022.
Decision Perusal of the reply dated 17.08.2022 relied upon by the Respondent indicates that the reply has not been sent in a point wise manner and lacks clarity as such. Therefore, the Respondent is hereby directed to send a revised point wise reply clearly answering each of the queries raised by the Appellant. The Respondent shall send the revised reply to the Appellant within fifteen days of receipt of this Page 7 of 13 order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within a week thereafter.
The appeal is decided accordingly.
(4) CIC/ SCOFI/A/2022/655101 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2022 seeking the following information:-
"(i) Subject matter of information: We would like to refer to the petition filed under Article 32 with Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (SCI) against two Bar Councils. On 03-FEB-2022, the Concerned Scrutiny Officer (Unnamed, Undisclosed, Unidentified) drawn 15 defects and said specimen formats have been sent on our email id [email protected], hence, for any man of ordinary prudence it is wise to understand that such emalls must have come in our inbox on same day of 03-FEB-2022 "defect-wise" and such sending must have been done automatically" without the intervention of the concerned Scrutiny Officer but until today, 136 calendar days passed no such email came to us, neither our matter listed on board for hearing and that's what formed the basis of this RTI and also the cause of action as per CPC 1908. No criminal wants to be identified by name as that what Criminal Psychology says, and hence, the Scrutiny Officer. What happens by hiding the name of public servant from public office, we do not understand? What's shy in that in disclosing the name? Such things are happening within premier institutions like Supreme Court is really worrisome.
In our all legal matters until today, a group of people like "Martya and his three sons" from "Ambajogai & Thane" are managing each and every officer who began this fake case against us at DRT Aurangabad in the year 2013 by firing bullets from the shoulders of SBI bank officers and in turn laundered money to grow their businesses from SBI hand-in-gloves with SBI bank lawyer Adv Prakash Paithankar and our lawyers and their relatives Adv Avinash Irpatgire, Adv Uddhav Momale. How? by instigation of matter via misusing provisions of SARFAESI Act. Who then also benefitted Aurangabad based four Directors in the firm M/s Piyush Infratech Pvt Ltd including fifth "dhotarwala politician" Mr Haribhau Bagade. And now when this matter came to Bar Council, then also Bar Councils were bought by paying lot of same looted SBI money.
No SCI Staff should forget that they are bounded by their applicable service rules and they must not take part in wrong-doings of their "Bar Councils"
who landed them jobs in SCI to protect "them" and their "Advocates" and co. We believe the concerned Scrutiny Officer has acted in "bad faith" by doing "good faith violation" he is liable for strict punishment. We will ensure it will be done. This approach to win against ordinary citizens by hook or by crook instead of doing their statutory duty needs to be tackled down wherein they have to do their duties impartially.Page 8 of 13
1) Please provide information showing the name of the Scrutiny Officer (Unnamed, Undisclosed, Unidentified) who drawn 15 defects in our matter Diary No. 3558/2022, with his/her contact details.
2) Please provide information showing reasons recorded in writing for "not sending specimen formats on emails defect-wise" since 136 calendar days passed; though shamelessly it was said in the defect itself that it has been sent our email id.
3) Please provide information regarding service rules applicable to him/her.
4) Please provide information regarding details of concerned Vigilance Office such as name of the vigilance authority, contact details such as telephone number, mobile number, official address, email etc. to which Scrutiny Officers of SCI are bound by their service rules.
5) Please provide information regarding the provisions of law, if any, about non- disclosure of name of the Scrutiny Officer while drawing defects as per RTI Act 2005.
6) any other information available in any form with SCI as regards to above points of information."
The CPIO/Additional Registrar, Supreme Court of India, vide letter dated 04.08.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No. 1, 2 & 5: As ascertained from the concerned judicial section, the list of defects and other details have already been made available on the website of the Supreme Court of India viz. www.sci.gov.in. The Applicant may check the status of his case on the website of the Supreme Court of India viz. sci.gov.in under the tab 'Case Status'. In the fresh matters the defects are notified by Section I-B by the concerned Scrutiny Officer, the details of officers of the Registry including Section I-B are available on the website of the Supreme Court under the link "Telephone Directory' at the bottom of Home Page. The matters are being dealt in terms of Supreme Court of India: Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, 2017, Supreme Court rules, 2013 and practice/directions issued from time to time.
Supreme Court of India: Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, 2017 and Supreme Court rules, 2013 are available on the official website of the Supreme Court of India viz. www.sci.gov.in. Point No. 3: The employees of the Registry of Supreme Court of India are governed by the Supreme Court Officers and Servants (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1961 available at the following link:
https://main.sci.gov.in/officers-servant-rules-1961 Point No. 4: The Officers and Employees are subject to Rules of Conduct and Discipline as provided in Part-III of the Supreme Court Officers and Servants (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1961 (available on the Supreme Court website at the link https://main.sci.gov.in/officers servant- rules-1961). The details of the Vigilance department are as under: "The Registrar (Vigilance), Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi- 110001 Tel. No. 23112518 Email [email protected]"Page 9 of 13
Point No. 6: Nil.
Ms. Anju Bajaj Chandna, Ld. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, is the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the appeal, if so advised, can be filed within 30 days from the receipt of this reply."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.09.2022. The FAA/Registrar, Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 22.09.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Himani Sood- CPIO and Shri Abhijeet Pandove, Advocate were present during the hearing.
The Respondent present during hearing reiterated that reply in terms of the RTI Act had been sent to the Appellant.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case at hand reveals that appropriate information from available records of the public authority, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress his appeal.
In the given circumstances, since information has already been provided to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(5) CIC/SCOFI/A/2022/667230 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.09.2022 seeking the following information:-
"(i) Subject matter of information: We would like to refer to the petition filed under Article 32 with Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (SCI) against two Bar Councils. On 26-AUG-2022, we complied all scrutinies and defects and we were hoping that matter will be listed on time as per Supreme Court Rules 2013 ORDER XV Rule 6, as mentioned in our email dated 17-Sep-2022 @ 03:51PM but no cognizance taken until today, 30 calendar days passed our Page 10 of 13 matter not listed on board for hearing and that's what formed the basis of this RTI and also the cause of action as per CPC 1908. Such things are happening within premier institutions like Supreme Court is really worrisome. But our files remained pending in section 18 till 09-Sep-2022 and then Verification remain pending till 17-Sep-2022 and then concerned officer entered in computer, data to generate hearing date as 17-Oct-2022 which is again delayed by 50 days from compliance in violation of ORDER XV Rule 6. We have filed SCI complaint to UN HRC and we will soon take it forward for prosecution to shut down SCI permanently as it has failed to protect human rights of citizens and failed to comply the Constitution of India.
In our all legal matters until today, a group of people like "Martya and his three sons" from "Ambajogai & Thane" owners of 150 acres of land in violation of Land Ceiling Act are managing each and every officer who began this fake case against us at DRT Aurangabad in the year 2013 by firing bullets from the shoulders of SBI bank officers and in turn laundered money to grow their businesses from SBI hand-in-gloves with SBI bank lawyer Adv Prakash Paithankar and our lawyers and their relatives Adv Avinash Irpatgire, Adv Uddhav Momale. How? by instigation of matter via misusing provisions of SARFAESI Act. Who then also benefitted Aurangabad based four Directors in the firm M/s Piyush Infratech Pvt Ltd including fifth "dhotarwala politician" Mr Haribhau Bagade. And now when this matter came to Bar Council, then also Bar Councils were bought by paying lot of same looted SBI money.
No SCI Staff should forget that they are bounded by their applicable service rules and they must not take part in wrong-doings of their "Bar Councils"
who landed them jobs in SCI to protect "them" and their "Advocates" and co. We believe the concerned Officers have acted in "bad faith" by doing "good faith violation" liable for strict punishment. We will ensure it will be done. This approach to win against ordinary citizens by hook or by crook instead of doing their statutory duty needs to be tackled down wherein they have to do their duties impartially.
1) Please provide information showing the movement of our matter files in Diary No. 3558/2022 from 26-Aug-2022 till today 26-Sep-2022 names of all those officers who handled our file-details of Computer log.
2) Please provide information showing the name of the Concerned Officer along with designation who kept file with section 1B from 26-Aug-2022 till 09-Sep- 2022 and reasons recorded in writing for keeping file for this much long time in violation of ORDER XV Rule 6 instead of listing matter for first hearing.
3) Please provide information showing the name of the Concerned Officer along with designation who kept file with Verification from 09-Sep-2022 till 17- Sep-2022 and reasons recorded in writing for keeping file for this much long time in violation of ORDER XV Rule 6 instead of listing matter for first hearing.Page 11 of 13
4) Please provide information showing the name of the Concerned Officer along with designation who entered data in the Computer as a result of which SMS was generated on 17-Sep-2022 to our mobile number 9022818629 informing tentative date as 17-Oct-2022 (Computer generated), 50 days delay and reasons recorded in writing for keeping file for this much long time in violation of ORDER XV Rule 6 instead of listing matter for first hearing.
5) Please provide information regarding service rules applicable to him/her.
6) Please provide information regarding details of concerned Vigilance Office such as name of the vigilance authority, contact details such as telephone number, mobile number, official address, email etc. to which these Concerned Officers of SCI are bound by their service rules.
7) Please provide information regarding the provisions of law, if any, about non- disclosure of name of Concerned Officers while handling our case files as well as generating on Computer as per RTI Act 2005.
8) any other information available in any form with SCI as regards to above points of information."
The CPIO/Additional Registrar, Supreme Court of India, vide letter dated 16.11.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No. 1-4: As ascertained from the concerned sections you are petitioners in the judicial matter viz. Writ Petition (C) D.No. 3558 of 2022. Further, as per the ICMIS the defects in the W.P. (C) bearing Diary No. 3558/2022 have already been removed from the system on 26/08/2022 and also been registered the same day. For further status, you may check on the link: https://main.sci.gov.in/case-status. The details of officers of the Registry including Section I-B are available on the website of the Supreme Court under the link "Telephone Directory' at the bottom of Home Page.
Point No. 5: The employees of the Registry of Supreme Court of India are governed by the Supreme Court Officers and Servants (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1961 available at the following link:
https://main.sci.gov.in/officers-servant-rules-1961 Point No. 6: The details of the Vigilance Cell are as under: "The Registrar (Vigilance), Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi- 110001 Tel. No. 23112518 Email ID- [email protected]"
Point No. 7-8: It is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of CPIO, Supreme Court of India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to interpret the law, or to give explanation, opine, comment or advise on matters, etc. Your request is not covered under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and cannot be acceded to."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.11.2022. The FAA/Registrar, Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 14.12.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Page 12 of 13Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Himani Sood- CPIO and Shri Tacho, Advocate were present during the hearing.
The Respondent present during hearing reiterated that reply furnishing information in terms of the RTI Act had been sent to the Appellant.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case at hand reveals that appropriate information from available records of the public authority, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress the appeal.
Considering the fact that information has already been provided to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 13 of 13