CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000374/SG/13650
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000374/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant :. Mr. E. Krishna Singh
S/O Late Gyanchand Singh,
Vill-Kinjar, Post &
P.S. - Kinjar, District-Arwal, Bihar.
Respondent : Mr. B. K. Singh
CPIO & S.P.
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Dr. S. K. Singh Path,
Bailey Road, Patna-800 022
RTI application filed on : 15/07/2010
PIO replied : 07/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 18/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : No order
Second Appeal received on : 01/12/2010
Information sought by the appellant:
The appellant through various queries had sought various information/reasons as when Magistrate at
Jahanabad Court in file no. T.S.No. 44/95 had decided on 19/11/98 that Late Mr. Anil Kumar Singh
was actual son of Bhagwati Devi who had died in road accident on 29.12.88. He had sought:
a- Whether CBI has authority to call him imaginary person? Whether it not contempt of court to
call him as imaginary person?
2- Where CBI is claiming forgery the Civil Court is giving a Decree. How can CBI then call it
forgery.
3- When witnesses are changing their statements before the Court in case. T.S.No. 44/95, is it not
proof that IO is trying to trap applicant.
And three queries of this nature.
Information provided by PIO:
With reference to your application dated 20.9.2010 received by the undersigned on 21.9.2010, I write
to inform you that you are not a party in the Contempt Petition (Cr1.) No. 10/2009 in Interlocutory
Application No. 1324, 1474 and 2134 in W.P (Civil) No. 202/1995 which is sub-judice and hence
cannot be furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Further, certified copies of judgments/orders/judicial records can be obtained by moving an
application to Registrar (Copying), Supreme Court of India under Order Xli, Supreme Court Rules,
1966 by giving full particulars of the case on payment of prescribed fee and charges. Supreme Court
Rules, 1966 are also available on the Supreme Court website and can be accessed/downloaded
therefrom.
Grounds of the First Appeal:
Information not provided.
Order of the FAA:
Not received
Ground for the Second Appeal:
a) The CPIO arbitrarily declined the disclosure of requested information.
b) The petition before the appellate authority has not been adjudicated upon.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. E. Krishna Singh on telephone through mobile no. 08051808062;
Respondent: Mr. B. K. Singh, CPIO & S.P. on video conference from NIC-Patna Studio;
The respondent states that the Appellant had not sought any information which is on any
record. The Appellant was seeking interpretations and clarifications on matters which are in court.
Since the Appellant had not sought any information the PIO was unable to supply any information.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
No information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act had been sought.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
25 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RU)