CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00991/SG/2226
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00991/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ram Kumar Yadav
C/o Pratludi Organization
Campus Police Station Shakarpur
First Floor, Room No.-25, Pusta marg
Ramesh Park, Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar Khudania,
Superintendent & PIO,
Office of The District & Sessions Judge
Office of the Civil Judge, Delhi
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 08/02/2008 PIO replied : 01/03/2008 First appeal filed on : 19/03/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 07/04/2008 Second Appeal filed on : 14/05/2008 Information Sought
The appellant had sought following information from PIO- Office of The District &
Sessions Judge regarding his FIR no.74/07.
1. My case is under consideration by the Hon’ble Judge, Mr.Ravindra Sing in
Court no.17 and I am staying in Delhi since one year with a hope that the case
will be started shortly. Kindly furnish the date and time by which hearing of
my case will be started. What is the time by which you will receive my
medical report from Hyderabad?
2. .Does hearing of my case could be started without having medical report?
Does my statement can be recorded before medical report?
PIOs’ Reply:
The PIO replied that “With reference to your Letter NO.4248 Admn. Dated
26/02/2008. As per record, the FIR no.74/07 P.S.-Shakar Pur U/S-377/511 IPC is not
submitted by the I.O./SHO till today in the court.”
Since the appellant is not satisfied with the PIO’s reply, he filed first appeal before the
First Appellate Authority.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
The First Appellate Authority ordered that “The entire information sought by him is a legal
advise. Reply was sent to him that FIR no.74/07 PS Shakar Pur under Section 377/511 was
not submitted by the SHO in the Court. This information cannot be supplied by the PIO.
Whatever other information sought by the appellant is a legal advise and beyond the scope of
Right to Information Act. Appeal is devoid of merits and same is dismissed.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant : Mr. Raj Mangal Prasad on behalf of Mr. Ram Kumar Yadav
Respondent : Absent
The queries of the appellant do not constitute ‘information’ as defined under the RTI
act. The First appellate authority’s decision is correct and the appeal is not
maintainable.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
16 March, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(RM