Central Information Commission
Mrsheshrao Ganpatrao Jodand 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/CC/A/2015/001808
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 20.08.2014 seeking information regarding the orders passed by Sh. S.H. Kapadia (CJI) & Sh. Swatantra Kumar, the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India dated 26.04.2010 in the SLP (C) No. 13137 of 2010 and in Review Petition (C) No. 1497 of 2010 dated 30.03.2011 and any order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice Sh. R.B. Lodha on his complaint letter dated 24.05.2014.
2. The CPIO responded on 05.11.2014. The appellant filed first appeal on 14.11.2014 with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 19.12.2014. The appellant filed second appeal on 17.02.2015 before the Commission on the ground that complete information should be provided.
Hearing:
3. Both the parties are 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 terminated the services of the appellant.
7. The appellant referred to his RTI application and stated that the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India were illegal.
8. The appellant stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had not considered the School code or MEPS Act, 1977 and Rules 1981 in the order passed in SLP(C) No. 13137 of 2010 and in Review Petition No. 1497 of 2010. Thus, the orders had become null and void.
9. The appellant stated that he also seeks to know the action taken on his complaint dated 24.05.2014 sent to the Hon'ble Chief Justice Sh. R.B. Lodha.
10. The respondent referred to the CPIO's reply dated 05.11.2014 and stated that the appellant was duly informed that information relating to complaints against Hon'ble Judges is the subject matter of judicial proceedings in SLP Nos. 3285556 of 2009 and now converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 1004445 of 2010, which are subjudice before 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 which 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 19.12.2014, 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