Central Information Commission
Shri Mukesh Kumar vs High Court Of Delhi on 19 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01543 dated 22-11-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Mukesh Kumar
Respondent: High Court of Delhi
FACTS
By an application of 27-8-2007 Shri Mukesh Kumar of Civil Lines, Delhi applied to High Court of Delhi seeking the following information in LPA 2021 of 2006.
"for the past FOUR dates in EIGHTS months, Registry did NOT put up the files of case No. LPA 2021/2006, even in the court of Hon'ble Chief Justice.
In view of above, please supply me Para wise 'information' on the followings:-
Q. 1. Referring provisions u/s 4 (1) (d) RTI Act, please record the reasons SEPERATELY for each of the above four dates in justifying the circumstances that the concerned files were not placed by the Registry before the court of Hon'ble Justice of Delhi High Court.
Q. 2. Please supply me one set of certified copy of the above concerned file, which was not placed by the Registry despite repeated orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
Q. 3. Please also give me the names and designations of the officials and authorities, responsible for keeping the custody of and placing the said files before the Hon'ble Court on each of the above four dates.
Q. 4. Please supply me copy of report and the status of my Representation dated 7.12.2006 (Acknowledgment enclosed), wherein copy of my Petition against Hon'ble Justice J. M. Malik was also enclosed u/s 7 (2) (i) & 7 (1) PCR Act, besides limitations of civil courts on penal provisions u/s 13 (1) & 12 PCR Act.
Q. 5. Considering provisions u/s 4 (1) (d) RTI Act and the larger public interest involved in allowing handling of judicial functions, please also give reasons that Hon'ble Justice J. M. Malik is administratively allotted negligible cases these days (i.e. old criminal matters up to 1995 and bail matters), such as the cause list available up-to-date for some of the following dates is as under:-1
Date No of cases in
cause list for Court
No. 31
17.8.2007 One
21.8.2007 Nil
23.8.2007 One
27.8.2007 Nil
Date No of cases in
cause list for Court
No. 31
20.8.2007 Nil
22.8.2007 Nil
24.8.2007 Nil
29/30-8-2007 Nil
To this he received a response from Shri R. Gopalan, APIO on 22-9- 07 point-wise as follows:-
"The information asked for is under:-
1. File of LPA 2021/06 could not be sent to the Court as the file was not traceable though the best efforts were made.
2. Certified copy of order sheets can be supplied as and when applied for. At present the applicant has not applied for the certified copies so far.
3. Ms. Tara Arora, Senior Judicial Assistant is responsible for keeping the custody of and placing the said files before the court on the date of hearing. Her explanation has been called for.
4. Letter dated 7.12.2006 of Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Manager, CM&WS Dept. SAIL, ISP, Burnpur (WB) seeks listing of his case WP (C ) 18097/2006 before Hon'ble Justice J. M. Malik. The applicant may move an appropriate application on the judicial side for the purpose. Moreover, the cases are listed before the Hon'ble Benches as per the Roster prescribed and directions given by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
5. Hon'ble Justice J. M. Malik is not holding Court with effect from 13.8.2007 due to indisposition and the matters on his Lordship's board were distributed amongst other benches."2
Not satisfied by the answers except to that at question No. 3, appellant Shri Mukesh Kumar moved his first appeal on 3-10-07 in response to which Shri Kalam Singh in his order of 5-11-07 came to the following conclusion:
i) I am informed the file is still untraceable. Besides initiating departmental action against the concerned official, steps are being taken to reconstruct the file.
ii) The appellant showed his inability to place on record a copy of said representation. Therefore, information on this point cannot be supplied.
iii) Assistant Public Information Officer has already informed the appellant that Hon'ble Justice J. M. Malik was not holding Court since 13.8.07 due to indisposition.
The appeal was disposed of accordingly. Not satisfied, however, Shri Mukesh Kumar has moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"1. Supply 'information' separately against each questions of my RTI Application as per annexure-'C' enclosed;
2. Suitable action u/s 20 against PIO/AA/deemed PIO u/s 5 (5) RTI Act;"
The appeal was heard on 11-5-2009. The following are present.
Appellant Mukesh Kumar Respondents Shri Sudhir Sachdeva, SR. Judicial Assistant. Shri Rajiv Bansal, Nominated Counsel for the High Court. Shri Sunil Kukreja, AR/APIO, Delhi High Court, New Delhi.
Shri Mukesh Kumar submitted a copy of the subjects on which he had moved a writ before the High Court of Delhi seeking an answer from Steel Authority of India Limited to the following "Unanswered Questions:-
1. What is the Object of Classification as M. T. (Admn) and M.T. (Tech)?
2. What is the purpose of recruiting them separately?
3. What is the objective of classification into each Management Stream?
4. Why are the Eligibility criteria different for recruitment to each Management Stream?
5. What was the purpose of training separately in each management stream during probation period of 12 months as Management Trainees?3
6. What was SAIL's offer and my consideration before accepting terms and contract of employment, with respect to Management Stream?
7. What is the meaning of "Managerial Cadre" as used under clause 3.2 of terms of appointment, particularly in respect of relevant experience required for appointment at different Grades in each management stream?"
Appellant submitted that an LPA which was pending in the High Court of Delhi at the time that he had moved his appeal before us on 17-11-07 has been decided on 1-4-08 thereby answering the questions at serial No.1 and 2 of his application. The only questions pending, therefore, are those of questions 4 and 5.
On question No.4 Shri Mukesh Kumar complained of contradictory responses from the APIO and the Appellate Authority, in that he submits that APIO acknowledges the receipt of his letter of 17-12-06 with which the representation of 5-12-06 was annexed, whereas the first Appellate Authority has asked him to place a copy of his representation on record. Similarly, he has argued that although APIO has informed him that Justice J.M. Malik is not holding court w.e.f. 13-8-07, the appellate authority has taken no cognizance of the fact that both in his original application and his appeal he has mentioned several dates after 13-8-07 when cases have been shown in the cause list.
Shri Mukesh Kumar submitted that certified copies of documents are available under the RTI Act and also under the High Court Rules. However, he has been informed that "in view of rule 6, appellant is not entitled to certified copies under the Right to Information Act and if he so desires, he should make application for certified copies under Chapter 5, Delhi High court Rules and Orders Volume". He stated that this was inconvenient to those located outside Delhi as they would have to travel to Delhi to make an application at the counter as required under the Delhi High Court Rules.
Learned counsel for respondents Shri Rajiv Bansal submitted that in this case such information as is held by the High Court on the administrative 4 side has indeed been provided to the appellant Shri Mukesh Kumar. He invited our attention to the decision made by the Commission with regard to the issue of certified copies. This Commission has in a number of Decisions found that the procedure for obtaining certified copies of judgements laid down in the High Court Rules are consistent with the RTI Act and therefore not overridden by Sec 22 of the RTI Act 2005. A High Court, the Chief Justice of which is the 'competent authority' under the RTI Act 2005 to make rules applicable to that public authority ., The comments of appellant Shri Mukesh Kumar on the inconvenience faced by an applicant for such copy can at best be treated as a suggestion and might be noted by respondents.
On the question of information sought at point No.4 Shri Rajiv Bansal submitted that at the time when the application was made there was already a pending LPA before the High Court which was decided only on 1-4-2008. The issue was one that was to be raised during the LPA if appellant felt that that would have a bearing on the decision to be made in his case. With the conclusion of the LPA, therefore, there is no further substance in the request. On the question at No.5 it was submitted by learned counsel Shri Rajiv Bansal that cause lists are drawn up in the cases of all Justices but the Chief Justice at his discretion will transfer the roster on the basis of the ability of the concerned Justices to attend. As informed by PIO to appellant Shri Mukesh Kumar in the first instance Justice Malik was indisposed and not hearing cases. The only cases that would have been left on the roster would be those that were adjourned or those which were partly heard. In any case Justice J.M. Malik has since retired and any further information with regard to this issue is unsustainable.
DECISION NOTICE Having heard the parties and examined the records we find that the point at issue in this case is only one; appellant Shri Mukesh Kumar wishes to know what action has been taken on the charges made by him in his representation of 5-12-06 made to the Rajya Sabha, a copy of which was sent 5 to the High Court attached with the letter of 7-12-06 but being of a highly sensitive nature copies have not been appended with other submissions.
Although no specific answer has been given to this question, it is clear that no action has been taken on the charges made by Shri Mukesh Kumar in his representation of 5.12.2006. These charges appear to be allegations against Justice J. N. Malik, since retired and were for the consideration of the Chief Justice of the High Court. Subsequent to the hearing, through an Email of May 17, 2009 appellant Shri Mukesh Kumar has submitted as follows:
"It was clarified during hearing that Qn. 1 to 3 are become redundant as they related to Civil Appeal suit no. LPA 2021/06 of Delhi High Court, which was already decided on 1-4-08. However, they have strong relation to Qn. 4 & 5.
Additional Clarifications Regarding Qn. 4:
1. Additional copy of my Petition dt 5-12-06 was already submitted to Mr. A. K. Mahajan, PIO, as enclosure to copy of my 2nd Appeal dt 17-11-07, vide Speed Post No. EW113472956IN dt 17-11-07, amount Rs 80/- paid. Please refer Page no. 2 of my 2nd Appeal for copy of Speed Post receipts, as well as Point no. 4 of my GROUNDS in Qn. 4, Page no. 6 of paper book.
2. Getting injustice is our century old tradition for SCs/STs, as Ramcharit Manas also said, "Dhol, ganwar, shudra, pashu, naari, yeh sab taaran ke adhikari (drums, idiots, dalits, animals and women are fit only for beating/ punishment/ reprimand)". The Judgment dt 4-10-06 preferred to insult/ reprimand me by raising irrelevant issues as swayed away by respondent SAIL, instead of answering technical aspect of my illegal transfer order dt 11-3-06. Therefore, complaint was made against Justice J.M. Mallik under Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. Please also refer sec 7(1) (d) PCR Act.
3. The relevant sections of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, under which complaint against Justice J. M. Mallik was made to Chief Administrator/ Chief Justice of Delhi High Court on 7-12-06, and as per Petition dt 5-12-06 submitted to Rajya Sabha Sectt:
Sec 13. Limitation or jurisdiction of Civil Courts---(1) No Civil Court shall entertain or continue any suit or proceeding or shall pass any decree or order if the claim involved in such suit or proceeding or if the passing of such decree or order or if such 6 execution would in any way be contrary to the provisions of this Act.
Sec 12. Presumption by Courts in certain cases----Where any act constituting an offence under this Act is committed in relation to a member of a Scheduled Caste, the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such act was committed on the ground of "untouchability".
Sec 7 Punishment for other offences arising out of "untouchability"- (1) Whoever- ... ... ... (b) molests, injures, annoys, obstructs or causes or attempts to cause obstruction to any person in the exercise of any such right or molests, injures, annoys or boycotts any person by reason of his having exercised any such right; --- --- --- (shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months, and also with the fine which shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees.) Sec 7 (2)--Whoever------ (i) denies to any person belonging to his community or any section thereof any right or privilege to which such person would be entitled as a member of such community or section, ... ... ... (shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months, and also with fine which shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees.)
4. The Judgment dated 04-10-06 in WP(Civil) 8026/06 and Judgment dt 1-4-08 in LPA 2021/06 of Delhi High Court did not answer basic questions to my requests/ prayers regarding arbitrary change of terms of my employment vide illegal Transfer Order dt 11-3-06, whereby my discipline was revengefully changed from "Marketing" to "Civil Maintenance" , such as:
Unanswered Questions:
1) What is the Objective of Classification as Management Trainee (Admn) and Management Trainee (Tech)?
2) What is the purpose of recruiting them separately?
3) What is the objective of classification into each Management Stream/ discipline such as for M.T. (Admn)
- Personnel/ HR, Marketing, Material, aw etc, and for M. T. (Tech) - Engineering streams like Mechanical, Electrical, Civil, Metallurgy, etc?
4) Why is the Eligibility criteria different for recruitment to each Management Stream?7
5) What was the purpose of training separately in each management stream during probation period of 12 months as Management Trainees?
6) What was SAIL's OFFER and my CONSIDERATION before ACCEPTING Terms of Contract of Employment, with respect to Management Stream?
7) What is the meaning of "Managerial Cadre" as used under clause 3.2 of terms of appointment, particularly in respect of relevant experience required for appointment at different Grades in each management stream?
5. This transfer was out of revengeful attitude of SAIL management, as they never wanted to implement Government of India instructions on reservation & concessions for SCs/STs in matters promotions. In fact, after 5 years of rigorous follow up, SAIL's PIO admitted, vide reply no. PR/RTI-82/1886 dt 5-3-08, that most of Govt circulars on reservation/ concessions for SCs/STs, were not traceable in the company, despite being over 10 years' old circulars, as listed in my RTI Application dt 8-2- 08 (copies enclosed). Such a stance amounts to 'Untouchability' offence u/s 7(2)(i) PCR Act 1955, as it amounts to hatred feelings/ ill-will against rights/ privileges of SCs/STs denied to an individual (my promotions), besides also disobeying laws/ rules on reservation policy for injury to any person (myself), being another offence u/s 166 IPC.
This exposure on SC/ST matters goes contrary to what Justice JM Mallik stated in his Judgment dt 4-10-06 in WP (Civil) 8026/06, or in Judgment of Division bench in LPA 2021/06. Hence, my claim against annoyance and insult/ reprimand is justified, which amounts to 'Untouchability' offence u/s 7(1) (b) &
(d) PCR Act.
In the light of above, I hope, you may be kind to pass the order directing PIO to supply file notings on the action taken by Chief Administrator of Delhi High Court on my complaint against Justice JM Mallik."
It is unbecoming for a party to attempt to supplement arguments to present which he had been given every opportunity in the hearing. The reason that they have been discussed here in some details however is to make clear to all parties that these points largely cover a quest for redress of grievances and substantiation of allegations tossed about, not of information. Question No. 4 on which the argument rests his request for information reads as follows:
8"Please supply me copy of report and the status of my Representation dt. 7.12.2006 (acknowledgement enclosed), wherein copy of my Petition against Hon'ble Justice J. M. Malik, was also enclosed u/s 7(2) (i) and 7((1) PCR Act, besides limitations of civil courts on penal provisions u/s 13(1) & 12 PCR Act."
There is no request for file noting and we assumed that there is none to provide. However, should appellant Shri Mukesh Kumar wish to inspect a file in this regard or obtain copies of any file noting in this regard, he is free to move an application under sub sec. (1) of sec. 6 of the Right to Information Act before the CPIO, High Court of Delhi Shri P. S. Chaggar, Jt. Registrar (Est) for the purpose. At any rate the present appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Reserved in the hearing, this Decision is announced on this 19th day of May, 2009 in the open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 19-5-2009 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 K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 19-5-2009 9