CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01544 dated 6.8.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri G. B. Malik
Respondent - Supreme Court of India (SCI)
Decision announced: 17.2.2010
Facts
:
By an application of 2.11.’07 Shri Ganga Bishan Malik of Village Gagsina,
Distt. Karnal, Haryana applied to the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, seeking the
following information:
“Your honour is appealed to get the action taken Report obtained at
an earliest. Neither any response of these appeals was given nor
these appeals were handed over in the legal service cell of
Supreme Court for further action under my intimation.”
To this, Shri Ganga Bishan Malik received a response of 29.11.07 from
CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar pointwise, as follows:
‘1. Letter dated 11.11.98 was diarized as D. No. 6443/98 lodged
on 23.11.98 and weeded out on 15.12.2000.
2. Letter dated 12.8.04 was dairised as D. No. 4988/04 lodged
on 24.8.04 and weeded out on 1.2.2006.
3. Letter dated 15.9.04 was dairised as D. No. 5945/04 lodged
on 8.10.04 and weeded out on 1.2.2006.
4. Letter dated 12.10.04 was dairised as D. No. 7020/04 and
the Petitioner was asked on contact SCLSC vide this
Registry’s letter dated 14.12.04 and weeded out on1.2.2006.
5. Letter dated 15.10.04 was dairised as D. No. 7359/04 and
weeded out on 1.2.2006.
6. Letter dated 25.10.04 was dairised as D. No. 8022/04 an
lodged on 12.1.2005 thereafter weeded out on 1.2.2006.
7. Letter dated 27.9.06 was diarised as D. No. 8353/06 and
lodged on 25.11.06.
8. Letter dated 9.2.2007 was diarised as D. No. 1790/07 and
lodged on 11.4.2007.
9. Letter dated 16.1.2007 was diarised as D. No. 769/07 and
lodged on 2.3.07.
1
10. Letter dated 26.10.2007 has been diarized as D. No.
12211/07 and you have been replied by the Registry vide
letter dated 26.11.2007.”
Not reacting immediately, Shri Ganga Bishan Malik then appealed against
this information to the Appellate Authority, SCI but only on 14.5.08 i.e. 148 days
after the receipt of the CPIO’s response. Upon this Shri M. P. Bhadran, Appellate
Authority in his order of 15.5.08 dismissed the appeal as time barred in the
following words:
“As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 19 the appellate
Authority can admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of 30
days if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant was
prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. In fact,
no such cause is mentioned in the Appeal Memo for the inordinate
delay in filing this appeal. So there is no sufficient ground to
condone the delay and there is also no request for the same. So
the appeal cannot be admitted and the request to admit the appeal
is rejected.”
Shri Malik has then moved a second appeal before us with the following
prayer:
“The implementation of section 20 of RTI Act 2005 is sought
against the concerned authorities until the ‘demanded action
taken Report’ is provided by them against the nation traitors.”
The case was listed for hearing on 27.1.2010 through videoconference,
but videoconference facility failed at Karnal (Haryana). The hearing was
rescheduled for 17.2.2010 at 4.30 p.m. The appeal was then heard on 17.2.2010
by videoconference. The following are present:
Appellant AT NIC KARNAL
Shri Ganga Bishan Malik
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi
Shri Raj Pal Arora, Addl. Registrar / CPIO
Shri Devadatt Kamat, Advocate for SCIAppellant was asked by us as to what further information he required
considering that all his questions have been answered in the initial stage by the
CPIO who has clearly informed Shri Malik of the action taken on each of the2
points mentioned. Appellant Shri Malik, however, pleaded that the issue he had
raised has a bearing on his fundamental rights and national interest and he
wished to know what redress he might seek on complaining of what he considers
to be violation of the national interest.
DECISION NOTICE
The authority of this Commission is confined to adjudicating upon issues
which fall directly under the Right to Information Act 2005, which in brief means
ensuring that all information, as defined in Sec. 2(f) is made accessible in
accordance with Sec. 2(j) to every citizen of India who seeks this save that
information exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1). It does not extend to redressing
issues of the kind mentioned in the hearing by appellant Shri Ganga Bishan
Malik. Moreover this Commission is no advisory agency ministering advice to
those who seek it. In case he feels that there has been a violation of his rights, by
any authority, even a Court, Shri Ganga Bishan Malik is free to move a Writ
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India, which allows for The
Supreme Court to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature
of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part of the Constitution, or in the alternative a PIL under article 226. At any rate,
redress in such a case can only lie in a Court of Law and not through RTI Act,
2005. With these remarks, this appeal is dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
17.2.2010
3
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
17.2.2010
4