Central Information Commission
Shri S. M. Aurora vs Supreme Court Of India on 19 October, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000005 dated 31.1.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri S. M. Aurora
Respondent - Supreme Court of India
Decision announced: 19.10.2009
Facts:
By an application of 3.8.07, of which we have no copy on file, Shri S. M. Aurora of Vasant Vihar, New Delhi applied to the CPIO Supreme Court of India with the following request:
"for a copy of the order issued by the Complaint Commissioner, Shri H. P. Sharma, on my application for refund of deposit with Skipper Construction Company, sent by the Supreme Court of India through their letter dated 2 May 2006. Shri H. P. Sharma has not so far sent any order to me."1 To this Shri S. M. Aurora appears to have received a response on 21.8.07, of which also we have no copy on file but it is referred to on page 1 of order in Appeal No. 61 of 2007 before the First Appellate Authority of the Supreme Court of India. Not satisfied with this response, Shri Aurora moved an appeal before Shri Sunil Thomas, Appellate Authority, Supreme Court of India of which also we have no copy on record. In his order of 31.10.07 Shri Sunil Thomas directed as follows:
"In the Appeal, the Appellant has confined his attack to one aspect. It was that the impugned order was silent on his request for furnishing all relevant / decisions given by the Claims Commissioner and also the reason for in-action on his claim.
The records reveal that, the Appellant was justified in raising such a contention. In the application he had specifically sought the above information. However, the impugned order is silent about it. The CPIO was bound to furnish the above detail, if it were held by or under his authority. If it was held by any other authority, the CPIO 1 Gleaned from a letter of appellant Shri aurora of 22.1.'09, who had retained no copy of the original request.1
should have referred the application to that authority. To the above extent, the Appeal is liable to be allowed and the matter remanded. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the CPIO to consider the question of issuing the orders / directions issued by the Claims Commissioner, and the reason for its inaction, in the light of the observations made above. The CPIO shall pass appropriate order on the above."
Subsequently, in a letter of 12.10.08 CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar informed appellant Shri S. M. Aurora, as follows:
"The Claims Commissioner has not submitted and filed before this Hon'ble Court any order or decision on the claims including your claim as on date and as such the question of supply of copies of all relevant orders / decisions of the Claim Commissioner does not arise.
The information sought by you as regards the reasons for inaction on the part of Shri H. P. Sharma, Claims Commissioner relating your claim is not held by or under the control of the CPIO, Supreme Court of India. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Court, it is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of duties of the CPIO, Supreme Court of India under the RTI Act 2005 to issue directions to the Claim Commissioner, to give reasons for inaction on his part relating to your claim."
Shri Aurora has then moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"It is requested that the Hon'ble Court of CIC may kindly prevail upon Hon'ble SCI to enforce requisite discipline over the claims commissioner Shri H.P.Sharma and provide me with a copy of his order on my complaint against Skipper Constn. Co. (Jhandewala Tower Scheme deposits), particularly when my complaint against him under contempt of Supreme Court rules has been dismissed by the particular bench w/o assigning reasons.
In any case, I have to be informed about non-refund of deposit of Rs. 37,000/- with interest @ 18% lying with Skipper Constn. Co. since 1991, from Shri H.P. Sharma since he is working to favour them only."
This prayer is grounded on the following:
2"My first appeal No. 61 of 2007 for supply of order of the Claims Commissioner on my appeal was upheld by the appellate authority but CPIO expressed his inability in his letter dt. 12th Oct., 2007 due to no compliance by Shri Sharma and through his another letter No. 352/RTI/2007/SCI dt. 21st Aug., 2007 informed me that the Court extended his time till Jan., 2008 for completing his assignment."
The appeal was heard on 19.10.09. The following are present:
Appellant Shri S. M. Aurora Respondents Shri Raj Pal Arora, CPIO, SCI Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, Advocate for CPIO SCI Shri Amit Anand Tiwari submitted his vakalatnama on behalf of CPIO and F.A.A., Supreme Court of India issued by Shri M. K. Gupta, Registrar on 19.10.09. Shri Raj Kumar Aurora, CPIO, Supreme Court of India submitted a copy of a letter of Dec. 11, 2007 addressed to appellant Shri Surender Aurora by then CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. Registrar, Supreme Court of India in which the latter states as follows:
"I am sending herewith a copy of the letter No. HPS/CC/116 dated 27.11.2007 received from Shri H. P. Sharma, Claim Commissioner, regarding your claim application for payment of Rs. 37,000/- plus interest for your information."
To this is attached a letter from Claims Commissioner Shri HP Sharma, addressed to the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India with a copy to Shri Ashok Kumar dated 27.11.07. Appellant Shri S. M. Aurora, however, insisted that infact the information sought by him which was ordered to be provided by appellate authority Shri Sunil Thomas has not been provided.
DECISION NOTICE The issue before us is a simple one of compliance or non-compliance with the orders of Appellate Authority Shri Sunil Thomas. While appellant Shri Aurora insists that the orders have not been complied with, learned Counsel for 3 respondents Shri Anand Amit Tiwari sticks to his stand that in fact the orders stood complied with through the letter of 12.10.07, which compliance has been further cemented with the letter of 11.12.07 both quoted above. The issue then is not one that concerns this Commission.
From the facts above, it appears that this is a case of Information having indeed been provided by the CPIO as held by him within the definition of "right to information" in Sec 2(j) of the Act. However since it is the responsibility of the First Appellate Authority to ensure that the orders passed by it are duly complied with by the PIO, the Commission, therefore, has decided to remand the case to the first Appellate Authority Shri Sunil Thomas to satisfy himself that his orders under section 19(1) are duly complied with and the requested information furnished in terms of the order so passed. This will be without prejudice to the right of the first Appellate Authority to initiate any penal action under the Indian Penal Code against the PIO if satisfied of any willful violation of lawful orders promulgated by a public servant while exercising statutory powers.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 19.10.2009 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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 19.10.2009 4