Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01296-SM dated 05.10.2007
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 01.12.2008
Appellant: Cmde. Sukhjinder Singh
Respondent: Ministry of Defence (Navy).
The Appellant is present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following are present.
(i) Cdr. Roy Francis, PIO (SNC)
(ii) Lt. Cdr. J Mandez, DJA, HQ SNC
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant, on behalf of a sailor, had approached the CPIO for a
number of information in regard to a disciplinary proceeding held against the
sailor in which he had been punished. The CPIO had denied the information on
the ground that it was held in fiduciary relationship and that it was personal
information which had no relation to any public interest or public activity as per
Section 8(1) (e) and (j). Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant approached
the Appellate Authority in the Navy. The Appellate Authority heard his appeal but
held that the information could not be given, it being personal information
exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information Act.
It is against this order that the Appellant has approached this Commission in
second appeal.
3. At the beginning of the hearing, the Appellant reported that, in the
meanwhile, he had received a number of information from the Respondents and
that only a few of the information sought remained to be given. At this point, the
Respondents submitted that the Appellant had filed a Writ petition before the
Hon’ble High Court, Delhi and that the Hon’ble High Court had ordered for
certain documents to be given to the Appellant which had since been given to
him. They presented copies of two letters addressed to the Appellant forwarding a
number of information as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court and a copy
of the order of the Hon’ble High Court in which the Court had held that beside
the records already ordered to be given, there was no need to give any further
document to the Appellant. We perused the list of documents already given to the
Appellant in the wake of the Hon’ble High Court’s order and found that almost all
the information which the Appellant had sought had already been given to him
except the copy of the noting of the Naval Headquarters file in which the sailor’s
petition was analysed, para-wise comments of the Commanding Officer on the
sailor’s petition under section 163 of the Navy Act and the similar comments of
the C- in- C on the sailor’s petition.
4. The Respondents argued that since the matter was pending for
adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court and that Court was seized of the
matter and had directed that no further record need be given to the Appellant,
there was no need to proceed with this matter any longer. On the other hand, the
Appellant argued that the jurisdiction of this Commission was different from that
of the Hon’ble High Court and there was nothing in law to prevent this
Commission from separately deciding whether the information sought should be
given or not. Though it is a fact that this Commission can decide on the appeal
inspite of the Writ Petition pending before the Hon’ble High Court, the fact
remains that the Appellant has filed a Writ Petition against the Navy on this
matter before the Hon’ble High Court and the matter is sub judice. The
information, the Appellant is seeking, beside what has already been given to him,
is primarily to be used in furthering his case before the Hon’ble High Court and,
thus, has little relation to any public interest or public activity. The Appellant
should await the decision of the Hon’ble High Court. As provided in Section
8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, information which is personal in nature
having no relationship with any public interest or public activity may not be
given. In view of this and in view of the fact that almost all the information
sought except three items as listed above have already been given to the
Appellant, there is no ground to continue with this appeal. We, therefore, close
the matter, without any further direction.
5. The appeal is, thus, disposed off. Copies of this order be given free of cost
to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar