CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000239/SG/12296
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000239/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. R S Misra
S-93, New Palam Vihar,
Phase-1, Gurgaon - 122017
Respondent : Mr. M. M. Pandey
CPIO & Dy. Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
6 1/35, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi- 110001
RTI application filed on : 29/05/2010
PIO replied : 03/06/2010
First appeal filed on : 17/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 16/07/2010
Second Appeal received on : 21/09/2010
Information sought by the appellant:
The appellant through 25 queries sought information about certain orders and actions of CAT and also
certain information about Shri Shanker Raju, member of the tribunal.
Information provided by PIO:
“I am directed to refer to your application dated 29.05.2010 under RTI Act, 2005, received in
this Tribunal on 01.06.2010. and to say that information at Sl.No. 1 to 25 cannot be provided as only
the ‘material’ in the form as held by the public authority is required to be supplied by the Public
Information Officer and not to deduce anything from the material and then supply it to the RTI
applicant. Moreover, the CIC, in its Full Bench decision dated 18.09.2007 in Appeal No.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00586 (Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had
held that the RTI Act does not apply to judicial proceedings conducted by a Court or Tribunal as it
refers only to administrative and quasi-judicial decisions of the public authorities. As regards
information at Sl.No. 25, which is personal in nature and is exempted from disclosure under Section
8(l)(j) of RTI Act. 2005.
Grounds of the First Appeal:
Information not provided.
Order of the FAA:
I have gone through the RTI application of the applicant dated 29.05.20 10, reply sent by the CPIO
vide letter and the appeal dated 17.06.2010. The contention of the applicant to the effect that the Public
Authority is under an obligation to give an account of the basis on which the judgments are
pronounced by the CAT is unfounded and consequently unsustainable since provisions of NT Act do
not apply to the Judicial proceedings conducted by a Court or Tribunal. The CIC in Shri Rakesh
Kumar Gupta Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (supra) have held already. Judgment rendered can
be furnished on demand as per the rules on the subject but the basis on which the judgment has been
delivered is to be adhered to.
Besides Section 32 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 19S5, guarantees to the Members of the CAT
protection of action taken in good faith while discharging judicial function.
Details regarding visits of Hon’ble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) to NE Region specifically Manipur,
since no official visit was undertaken to Manipur or any other NE Region are not available.
With regard to the total asset of movable and immovable property of Hon’ble Shri Shanker Raju,
Judicial Member, it is to state that Hon’ble Members of the Tribunal have decided to declare their
assets voluntarily. As a result of that Hon’ble Shri Shanker Raju may/would also declare his assets. So
far those have not been declared and thus this Authority does not have in possession the information
sought for in this behalf. The appeals stands disposed of accordingly.
Ground for the Second Appeal:
Section 81(b) of KVS is unconstitutional and the appellant’s appeals are not being properly decided.
Hence he must get the information he is seeking.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. R. S. Misra;
Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Appellate Authority and Mr. M. M. Pandey, CPIO & Dy.
Registrar;
The Commission has perused the queries of the Appellant and agrees with the PIO that the
queries do not seek information as defined under Section-2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant is seeking
justifications of various orders of CAT and clarifications about these. This is certainly not information
as defined under Section-2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
What is sought is not information as defined under Section-2(f) of the RTI Act.
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
06 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (sg)