Central Information Commission
D Vijayalakshmi vs High Court Of Other States on 27 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg,
Munirka, New Delhi -110067
Tel : +91-11-26186535
File Nos. CIC/HCOST/A/2017/160147
CIC/HCOST/C/2017/152319
Appellant/Complainant: D Vijayalakshmi
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
Registrar (Admn.) Madras High Court,
High Court Road, Parrys, George Town,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600104.
Date of Hearing: 23.03.2018
Dated of Decision: 23.03.2018
ORDER
Facts:
CIC/HCOST/A/2017/160147
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 24-03-2017 seeking information regarding the appointment of Mr. Kalaiarasan as High Court Judge including copy of documents enclosed by him while applying for the post of judge.
2. The CPIO responded on 15.12.2017. The complainant filed first appeal on 27.06.2017. The FAA response is not on record. The complainant filed a complaint on 30.08.2017 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to her.
CIC/HCOST/C/2017/152319
3. The complainant filed RTI application dated 24-03-2017 seeking information regarding the appointment of Mr. Kalaiarasan as High Court Judge including copy of documents enclosed by Mr. Kalaiarasan while applying for the post of judge.
4. The CPIO response is not on record. The complainant filed an undated first appeal. The FAA response is not on record. The complainant filed a complaint on 27.07.2017 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to her.
Hearing:
5. Both the parties participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
Mr. D. Nithyanandan represented the appellant/complainant. Ms. R. Chandrika Devi represented the respondent. Both of the parties agreed to hearing of these cases together.
6. The appellant/complainant stated that complete information has not been provided to her. Further, it was stated that action should be taken against the respondent for delay in sending the reply. In addition, it was stated that public interest is involved in the matter. Therefore, full information should be disclosed to her.
7. The respondent stated that it took time in processing of multiple RTI applications and also due to official vacation in the Hon'ble High Court. In this respect, she requested for condonation of delay. Further, she stated that the sought for information is internal administrative matter and confidential in nature. Therefore, they have denied the same. Discussion/ observation:
8. These cases are treated as 2nd appeals.
9. This Commission observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is already is seized of the matter (relating to disclosure of information about judicial appointments) in C.A. No. 10044 of 2010 titled as Central Public Information Officer, SCI & Anr. v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Therefore, this Commission is not inclined to touch upon this issue.
10. Further, this Commission observed that no malafide is involved in the matter on the part of the CPIO. Delay is condoned. No case of penalty is made out in the matter.
Decision:
11. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
12. The respondent is advised to devise a suitable mechanism for careful monitoring of RTI applications/first appeals received in their office.
These appeals are disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar