Central Information Commission
T V Sunaresan vs Supreme Court Of India on 23 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/121828
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2024/104916
Shri T V SUNARESAN ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024
Date of Decision : 08.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/121828
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.01.2023
PIO replied on : 18.02.2023
First Appeal filed on : 28.02.2023
First Appellate Order on : 24.03.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2024/104916
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.09.2023
PIO replied on : 03.10.2023 & 07.10.2023
First Appeal filed on : 18.10.2023
First Appellate Order on : 24.11.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
(1) नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2023/121828
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1) "Information sought based on SCLSCs ref ANR 5121-
2021/SCLSC/2022 DT 28.6.2022;
Page 1 1.1) copy of the application dt 24.8.2021 mentioned in para 1 of your said letter may beforwarded 1.2) name of the legal service counsel cum consultant, bar council registration number, how is he/she associated with SCLSC (as employee or in any other capacity), his/her source of income from SCLSC, how is payment to him/her accounted in SCLSC, his/her office address , his/her residential address and all other details that will be needed to file various cases against her/him eg misconduct, criminal, tort etc etc-may be furnished 1.3) similar details of the legal serv ice counsel cum consultant who issued her opinion dt 8.1.2014 stated in the said letter dt 28.6.2022 may be furnished 1.4) similar details of the senior counsel who issued opinion dt 23.8.2016 may be furnished 1.5) copy of the said opinion dt 23.8.2016 fraudulently not attached to your said letter dt 28.6.2022 may be furnished 1.6) similar details of the person who issued letter ANR 5121- 2021/SCLSC/2022 DT 28.6.2022; may be furnished
2) Similar details of the person who issued mail / letter F4(10)/3131/SCLSC/2021/MS 17.06.2021 dt 17 June 2021 may be furnished
3) Copy of the application dt 30.4.2021 for legal aid mentioned in the said letter at para 2 may be furnished
4) Similar details of the Legal Services Counsel-cum-Consultant mentioned in the said mail dt 17.6.2021 may be furnished
5) Instances where SCLSC has furnished legal aid under SCLSC Reg 15(a) SCLSC Regulations may be furnished
6) And other related information."
The CPIO, Supreme Court of India vide letter dated 18.02.2023 replied as under:-
"With reference to your application No. NLSAT/R/E/23/00015 dated 12.01.2023 (received in this office on 20.01.2023) under Right to Information Act, 2005, which has been transferred by Ms. Meena, Section Officer/CPIO, National Legal Services Authority under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 with the request to take appropriate action. I am furnishing below the para-wise reply of paras 2 and 6 at page No. 1.
2. In this regard, your attention is invited to this office letter No. F- 9/SCLSC/RTI/2023 dated 12.02.2023 sent to you in response to your RTI Application dated 10.01.2023 However, a copy of the letter dated 28.12.2022 received from the NASLA and the copy of the SCLSC letter dated 15.12.2022 in response to your application No. NLSAT/R/E/22/00474 are annexed.
6. The information sought by the applicant does not fall under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
Page 2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 24.03.2023 stated as under:-
"Under the RTI Act the applicant is entitled to an information available in the official records of the public authority. The RTI Act has no provision for redressal of grievance or resolution of inter se dispute. As per the record, the applicant was give the information available and therefore there is no breach of any provision of RTI Act. Hence the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2024/104916 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.09.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Pursuant to Constitution of India and Legal Services Authorities, some of the duties of NALSA are specified at Sec 4 Legal Services Authorities Act ( LSAA) and these include monitoring the functions of the State Authority under Sec 7, 8 of the said Act, of High Court Legal Services under Sec 8A of the said Act and District Legal Services Authorities under Sec 10, Taluk Legal Services Authorities under Sec 11B and that of SCLSC and others in legal aid eg Contact Us - Welcome to Pravasi Legal Cell
2) Since matters are pending with NALSA, HCLSC Mumbai, MSLSA, GHCLSC, ASLSA - this application is made to NALSA.
3) Matters pending with NALSA;
• 3.1) conducting video proceedings in connection with my grievances • 3.2) steps taken by NALSA pursuant to its duties under Sec 4 LSAA with emphasis on ATR after I reminded NALSA of its duties (steps taken may be mentioned for each clause from clause "a" to clause "n" of Sec 4 of LSAA
4) Matters pending with HCLSC, Mumbai;
• 4.1) translation from Hindi to English of the annual report of NERAMAC for 1988- 89 hosted at the web site of the company in 2023 after my complaints to Lokpal, where fraudsters in the company and also Ministry Development NE Region ensured that the said document was suppressed and not hosted publicly • 4.2) translation from Marathi to English of a letter to my wife from the Joint Registrar Cooperatives CIDCO, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai
5) Matters pending with NALSA, HCLSC Mumbai, MSLSA (Maharashtra State), GHCLSC (Guwahati High Court), ASLSA (Assam State); • 5.1) Complete and entire records and proceedings of the judicial proceedings initiated by me at Honble High Court still not received • 5.2) gathering reference numbers of writ petition filed by me in 1991 and contempt petition in 1990 • 5.3) Complete and entire records and proceedings of the judicial proceedings initiated by me at Honble High Court in respect of the proceedings at para 5.2 Page 3
6) A few mails addressed (see para 7 below) to among others to SCLSC applying for legal aid and/or appeals to Chairman SCLSC. All of these deal with legal aid pertaining to many matters, major of whom include; 6.1) unlawful acts of ICAI and unlawful and ultra vires delegated laws according undue advantages to fraudster auditors, habitually fraud perpetrating and / or misconducting auditors contributing to AGM fraud and consequent losses due to AGM fraud, whether at NERAMAC or at DHFL or at ILFS or anywhere including PNB Bank, Yes Bank, Bhusan Steel, PMC Bank, LVBank, ABG Group, Videocon, Reliance Capital, Reliance Infra, CGS Power, Amrapalli, Unitech, Jaypee losses in insolvencies following AGM fraud where auditors, secretarial auditors, CAG, audit committee etc are involved • 6.2) unlawful acts at Central Information Commission • 6.3) unlawful acts at SCLSC etc etc eg fabricating my income • Etc etc etc
7) And other related information."
The CPIO, National Legal Services Authority vide letter dated 03.10.2023 replied as under:-
"With regard to your RTI application, it is informed that for providing information on para no. 4,5,6,7,8, &9 relating to other public authorities i.e., PIO, HCLSC (Mumbai), CPIO, SCLSC, PIO Maharashtra SLSA and PIO, Guwahati High Court vide letters dated 06.09.2023. These letters were forwarded to you also and same was attached herewith for ready reference.
You are also informed following:
Para no. 3.1: With regard to this point, it is informed that for video conferencing with you has been held by the Maharashtra SLSA/HCLSC Mumbai. Further, an e- mail was also sent to SCLSC for video conferencing with you and matter is listed for 03.10.2023.
Para no. 3.2: With regard to this point, you have not clearly mentioned as to what information do you want to know from this office. However, as per Section 4 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the functions of the Central Authority are making policies, schemes for legal aid and utilisation of fund for the legal services. Para no. 8 (sub bullet 2): with regard to this, it is informed that NALSA letters dated 09.11.2022 and 12.12.2022 were sent to SCLSC relating to NLSAT/R/E/22/00474 and NLSAT/A/E/22/00090. You may contact to the SCLSC in this regard.
Para no. 8 (Sub bullets 3 & 4): with regard to these points, it is informed that you have not sought any material information pertaining to NALSA as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, it is informed that Legal Services Institutions are governed as the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and Regulations framed for the Legal Services Institutions and the principal objective of NALSA and Legal Services Institutions is to provide free legal assistance/services to the persons eligible under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the schemes made thereunder."
The CPIO, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee vide letter dated 07.10.2023 replied as under:-
Page 4 "Xx 'Para No. 6:
The Information sought by you under this para is grievances/Complaint in nature which does not fall within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also does not fall under the ambit and scope of duties of the CPIO, SCLSC to redress any grievances/complaint under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Para No. 7 & 9:
This is to inform you under this para that as per records of emails available the email dated 21.04.2020 and 15.12.2020 is not received. The emails dated 08.09.2020 was regarding online RTI application. The email dated 18.12.2019 and 12.10.2020 were reiterating the previous subject matter. The record of your emails replied is enclosed herewith. Para No. 8:
The Information sought by you under this para is grievances/Complaint in nature which does not fall within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also does not fall under the ambit and scope of duties of the CPIO, SCLSC to redress any grievances/complaint under the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, Ms. Nidhi has been performing her duties under the directions issued by the competent Authority.
Under the RTI Act the applicant is entitled to an information available in the official records of the public Authority. The RTI Act has no provision for redressal of grievance or resolution of interse dispute.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.10.2023. The FAA vide order dated 24.11.2023 stated as under:-
"The appellant filed an application No NLSAT/R/E/00338 dated 4.9.2023 before the Central Public Information Officer, NALSA, which has been transferred to CPIO, SCLSC, by the CPIO, NALSA, vide letter F no L/03/2019/RTI-NALSA/2310 dt 6.9.2023 for appropriate action. The Central Public Information Officer SCLSC vide letter no F-
147/SCLSC/RTI/2023 dt 7.10.2023 has provided desired information to the appellant .Being aggrieved by the reply dt 7.10.2023 of the CPIO, SCLSC, the appellant has filed this First Appeal dt 18.10.2023 before the undersigned for adjudication.
Considering the facts and circumstances leading to the present appeal and in particular the fact of the case, it is desired proper not to issue notice of hearing to the appellant. Hence the present appeal is being decided on the basis of the application of the appellant and the record available with the First Appellate Authority, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, SCLSC.
Under the RTI Act the applicant is entitled to an information available in the official records of the public authority. The RTI Act has no provision Page 5 for redressal of grievances or resolution of interse dispute. As per the record the applicant was given the information available and therefore there is no breach of any provision of RTI Act. Hence the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Ms. Meena, SO, NALSA, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate on behalf SCLSC, Mr. Ashok Kr. Verma, Assistant Section officer, SCLSC- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
Written submission received from the Appellant has been taken on record for perusal.
The Appellant reiterated the averment made in his written submission and stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the PIO. He stated that Legal aid counsels and those in legal aid conspiring with the fraudster. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish complete information.
The Respondent reiterated the averment made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant. They further stated that the application of the Appellant for legal -aid has been denied after analysing all his documents and on the basis of legal opinion. They averred that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications, and he is seeking redressal of his grievance through RTI Act.
Decision:
Since the Appellant is the same the matters are clubbed together for final hearing and disposal.
Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Matters are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 6 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)