Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000936SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 23 May 2011
Date of decision : 23 May 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri B N Bhootra
E124, Nehru Park,
Jodhpur.
Name of the Public Authority : The Central Public Information Officer,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Arijit Prasad, Advocate,
(ii) Smt. Asha Ahuja, Br. Officer
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Jodhpur studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present in our
chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. It seems the Appellant had sent some complaints to the Supreme Court
against the magistrates of the lower courts, police officials and advocates in the
State of Maharashtra. He wanted to know from the CPIO about the action taken
on his complaints. The CPIO informed him that his complaint had been lodged
as it was considered that it was not covered under the parameters to be
accepted as a PIL. The Appellate Authority had also endorsed this decision of
CIC/WB/A/2009/000936SM
the CPIO.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that he had never filed any
PIL and had filed only complaints against the magistrates, police officers and
the advocates in the State of Maharashtra. He argued that instead of filing his
complaints, the Supreme Court should have forwarded those downward for
further necessary action. In response, the Respondent submitted that the
complaints did not come within the administrative jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court and, therefore, it could not have taken any action on those including
forwarding those to any other authority. He further submitted that these were
considered under the norms laid down for accepting PILs and were found
wanting and, therefore, were filed.
5. After carefully considering the facts of the case and the submissions
made as above, we find nothing wrong in the response of the CPIO. He could
not have provided any more information than what was available, namely, that
the complaints had been filed. As pointed out during the hearing, if the
Appellant had complaints against some magistrates, police officers and
advocates in the State of Maharashtra, he should have approached various
statelevel authorities including the High Court of the state for appropriate
action. The Supreme Court of India could not have entertained these
complaints and taken any administrative action.
6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
CIC/WB/A/2009/000936SM
Chief Information Commissioner
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/WB/A/2009/000936SM