Central Information Commission
Mrsheshrao Ganpatrao Jogdand vs Supreme Court Of India on 29 July, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
Tel : +91-11-26717355
Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2015/003278
Appellant: Mr. Sheshrao Ganpatrao Jogdand
C/o. Sh. Pralhadrao Shinde, Nr Hanuman Temple,
Lok Manya Nagar, Parbhani431401, Maharashtra
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer/Addl. Registrar
Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg,
New Delhi
Date of Hearing: 29.07.2016
Dated of Decision: 29.07.2016
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 20.06.2015 seeking information regarding the present circumstance of grievance in respect of the appellant, action taken on his representation etc.
2. The CPIO responded on 16.07.2015. The appellant filed first appeal on 29.07.2015 with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 03.09.2015. The appellant filed second appeal on 28.09.2015 before the Commission on the ground that complete information should be provided.
Hearing:
3. Both the parties present in the hearing. The appellant participated through VC. The respondent appeared through his counsel Mr. Arijit Prasad.
4. The appellant had sent his written submissions dated 24.07.2016, which is taken on record.
5. The appellant stated that there was a secondary school at Issad village, Distt. Parbhani, Maharashtra where he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher against a permanent vacancy.
6. The appellant further stated that all benefits had been paid to him by the Govt. of Maharashtra D/o School Education. The appellant stated that he received a letter dated 30.04.1974, whereby the management of the Vishwamitra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Issad had terminated his services.
7. The appellant referred to his RTI application dated 20.06.2015 and stated that no information was provided to him.
8. The respondent referred to the CPIO's reply dated 16.07.2015 and stated that the appellant was duly informed that his SLP(C) No. 13137 of 2010 titled as Sheshrao Ganpatrao Jagdant Vs. Secy, State of Maharashtra was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 26.04.2010 and Review Petition No. 1497 of 2010 in SLP(C) No. 13137 of 2010 was also dismissed on 30.03.2011.
9. The respondent stated that they had further informed the appellant that no action was taken on his representation dated 24.11.2014 as the same was in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Order VIII, Rule 6(1) & (2) of Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
10. The respondent further stated that the information relating to complaints against Hon'ble Judges is the subject matter of judicial proceedings in SLP Nos. 3285556 of 2009, which has now converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 1004445 of 2010 and are now subjudice before the Hon'ble Court.
11. The respondent stated that vide order dated 04.12.2009 in SLP(C) No. 3285556 of 2009 titled "Central Public Information Officer & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal", there is a stay on disclosure of information relating to matters like the present one.
12. The respondent further stated that the disclosure of information and reports emanating out of a self evolved mechanism is in the nature of an InHouse Procedure by the judiciary and is expressly prohibited in terms of the decision dated 09.05.2003 in W.P. (C) No. 218 of 2003 titled as Indira Jaising Vs. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India.
13. The respondent further stated that the nature of information sought by the appellant is confidential and is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
14. The respondent stated that vide order dated 03.09.2015, the FAA had also upheld the decision of CPIO.
15. The respondent further stated that the information sought amounts to seeking an opinion or comment of the CPIO and it is beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Discussion/ observation:
16. The steps/action taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application is satisfactory.
Decision:
17. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of. A 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