Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Manishkumar Shriram Chaurasiya vs Supreme Court Of India on 7 March, 2025

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/2024/103911

Shri Manishkumar Shriram Chaurasiya                              ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                   VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Supreme Court of India                                 ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                          :   05.03.2025
Date of Decision                         :   05.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :           28.04.2023
PIO replied on                    :           01.07.2023
First Appeal filed on             :           31.07.2023
First Appellate Order on          :           06.09.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :           09.02.2024

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

"3) Particulars of Information required: I am undertrial & undercustody prisoner of Kalyan District prison class- I since last 42 months. I have been arrested by Kalyan Talutia police station on dated 01/11/2019 in the connection C.R.NO-

556/2019, Session I have sent case no-26/2021 Application/Petition dated 06/03/2023 to the Hon'ble chief Justice of India, Supreme court of India by past through Jail but till date i have not received any reply for same. Kindly provide me status of my Application/Petition dated 06/03/2023. Also provide me the reason that why till date no reply given regarding my Application"

The CPIO, Addl. Registrar, Supreme Court vide letter dated 01.07.2023 replied as under:-

"With reference to your RTI application dated 28/04/2023, received in this Secretariat on 01/06/2023, I write to inform you in so far as this Public Authority is concerned, as under:

As ascertained from the concerned branch, no action can be taken on the letter- petition/ application dated 06/03/2023 as per Order VIII, Rule 5 and 6(1) of the Supreme Court Rule 5 and 6(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 are available on the website of Supreme Court of India viz. www.sci.gov.in."

Aggrieved with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.07.2023. The FAA vide order dated 06.09.2023 upheld the PIO's reply.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The following documents are found on record:

i) A communication dated 28.08.2024 whereby the Respondent - Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition of the Appellant on the ground that it was barred by limitation period of over 920 days,

ii) the Appellant's application dated 29.09.2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application,

iii) a copy of order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the High Court of Bombay directing the concerned Sessions Judge at Thane adjudicating the Appellant's case to endeavour to conclude the trial in the Session case as early as possible, preferably within 5 months of date of communication of the order.

iv) an order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Apex Court directing the trial in the Appellant's case to be expedited.

The Appellant's father Shriram K Chaurasia has sought permission to attend hearing as authorised representative of the Appellant.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Shriram K Chaurasia was present through video conference Respondent: Ms. Himani Sarad - CPIO, Supreme Court was present during hearing with Shri Abhishek Raj, Advocate Both parties reiterated their respective contentions during the course of hearing, with the Respondent stating that the RTI application in question was responded with accurate information existing on record, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant's representative contended that he was aggrieved since the review petition of the Appellant was not heard by the Supreme Court.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent has furnished appropriate response in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, stating the exact reason as to why no action can be taken on the letter-petition/ application dated 06/03/2023 citing the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 5 and 6(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The reply sent by the PIO is legally appropriate, self explanatory and well within the precincts of the RTI Act. Hence, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)