Central Information Commission
Srikanth Sreedhar vs National Legal Services Authority on 9 May, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NLSAT/A/2023/603864
Shri Srikanth Sreedhar ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, High Court Legal Services Committee, ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Hyderabad
Date of Hearing : 07.05.2024
Date of Decision : 07.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri HeeralalSamariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.11.2022
PIO replied on : 30.11.2022
First Appeal filed on : 02.12.2022
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.11.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"I want legal opinion from Telangana HCLSC just like the Karnataka HCLSC Legal opinion uploaded. All documents required are provided too includingChief Vigilance Officer Inquiry Report stating that there was misappropriation and siphoning., CIC Order, Violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules. 8 TIMES theInstructor approached the Karnataka HC even though Section 29 of NIT Act 2007 clearly states that the decision of the Tribunal cannot be challenged in Court. This is a CLEAR intent on the part of NITK to MISUSE the process of law to favour the Instructor even when the Selection Committee clearly gave aruling, which can only be taken up through the Tribunal of Arbitration under Section 29 of NIT Act, 2007. The Ministry of Education Officers know aboutthe Corruption. NITs are under the Financial and Administrative Control of GOVT OF INDIA. Thus, the refusal of the Govt of India to act and the manner in which the Instructor was allowed to approach High Court EIGHT TIMES and even submit a Writ Appeal shows what a mockery of due process has happened at NITK. NITK refused to approach the Supreme Court against the High Court by stating that ONLY Page 1 NITK TRIBUNAL is the Competent Tribunal and that the Tribunal Decision cannot be challenged in Courts. Even the Board of Governors Member Dr Shanth Thimmaiah email to the Secretary of the Board of Governors on this issue is uploaded. Dr Thimmaiah clearly highlighted the bad precedent this sets for OTHER NITS if this Instructor is given promotion despite the Selection Committee Order. This Instructor was involved in the death of Anand Pathak. The HoD got Almost Rs 96000 in the Hostel Scam. Those who dealt with the subject in which I was stalked at NITK were in key Positions at NITK when this tragedy happened including NITKGRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, NITK GRC Convener has given WRITTEN STATEMENT that NITK blocks the grievances of students frombeing registered with the GRC. This is a CLEAR ADMISSION by NITK that they deny DUE PROCESS. Hence, I want a copy of the LEGAL OPINION of theTelangana HC Panel Advocate to know why I am being denied LEGAL AID. I am going to KILL the NITK STALKERS as my marks increased from 22 to 48 onRevaluation of answer sheet because Ministry is not Ordering UGC to scrutinize Mangalore Univ documents to OFFICIALLY DISCLOSE the identity of mystallkers because I am being wrongly denied LEGAL AID and my stalkers have threatened me and my family by contacting me at my POSTAL ADDRESS bywrongly accessing my postal address via the NITK REGISTRARS OFFICE despite the several deaths in the VYPAM SCAM. I have the RIGHT TO PROTECT MYFAMLY BY PRE-EMPTING AN ATTACK BY NITK STALKERS. I WILL KILL THE NITK STALKERS AND I WILL TAKE THE NALSA AND SLSA OF TELANGANA TO COURT FOR INACTION AND DENIAL OF LEGAL AID. I will expose MINISTRY OF EDUCATION TOP OFFICERS."
The APIO, HCLSC, O/o the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad vide letter dated 30.11.2022 replied as under:-
"Adverting to your RTI application dt.06-11-2022 referred above, I am to inform that the information sought by you pertains to the Administrative Notes of th eoffice. As a matter of fact, the Nothings, Jottings, Administrative Letters, Intricate Internal Discussions, Deliberations etc., of the petitioner cannot be brought under Section2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with theresponse received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.12.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Absent Both the parties remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.
Page 2 Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the documents available on record, the Commission at the outset finds that the RTI queries were more in the nature of statements/ averments which do not qualify as information as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission also finds the reply provided to the Appellant as absurd as Notings, Jottings, Administrative Letters, Intricate Internal Discussions, Deliberations recorded in writing qualify as information as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Nonetheless, no further intervention of the Commission is required in this matter for the reasons mentioned hereinabove.
The PIO, High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad is however cautioned to be present during the hearings before the Commission in future to contest the matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)