CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint Nos. CIC/WB/C/2008/00735 dated 19.6.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant - Col. A. D. Nargolkar
Respondent - Ministry of Defence
Facts
There were two complaints on a similar subject, which were clubbed and
heard together. Our decision in File No. CIC/WM/C/2008/00040 was announced
in the hearing on 4.12.2008. The decision in the present complaint was
reserved.
By an application of 14.2.08 Col. A.D. Nargolkar of HQ 41 Arty Div PIN
908441 applied to Maj. Gen. O.P. Soni, GOC 41 Arty Div, Southern Command
seeking the following information:
“Complete proceedings of C of 1 ordered vide your letter no.
400501/63/a dated 17th September, 2007 to include: –
(a) All Recordings Before And By the Court.
(b) Opinion & Findings by Presiding Officer.
(c) Recommendation of GOC 41 Arty Div.
(d) Recommendations of GOC 21 Corps.
(e) Directions of Final Competent Authority GOC- In-C-Southern
Command, on the Proceedings of the Court of Inquiry.
Postal Order for Rs. 200/- No. Xxxxx is at along with for MG/C Adm
HQ Southern Command only, since Proceedings are currently with
HQ Southern Command.”
To this he received no response with the result that he moved a first
appeal on 26.5.08 before both Maj. Gen. Soni and Maj. Gen. D. Rajan, the latter
In-charge Admn. HQ Southern Command, Pune. Upon this he received an order
of 10.6.08 informing him that “all recordings before and by the Court were
handed over to you vide HQ 41 Arty Div letter 400501/CF/And/27/1 dated 23 Feb
08 when 5CN was served on you. There is no provision under Army Rule 184,
under which Opinion and Findings by Presiding Officer, Recommendations of
1
GOC 41 Arty Divn and Recommendations of GOC 21 Corps can be provided.
Further, the information is denied under Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, as it
relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any
public activity or interest.”
Upon this Col. Nargolkar moved his 2nd appeal before us praying as follows:
“I feel that reply by HQ Southern Command dated 26th August 2005
and by RTI Cell at Army HQ dated 29th August 2008 is only a
delaying measure with the sole aim of prolonging gross trauma to
me and denying information to me in my quest for Justice. They
have misused their Powers of a Discreet Inquiry by Military
Intelligence transgressing lines of authority to look into my case.
Kindly review my case for information asked for from HQ Southern
Command as well as Army HQ in light of the above said facts and
situation. I have also cautioned army authorities that specific
persons are responsible under the RTI Act 2005 for such
unreasonably withheld information.”
Although this appeal attaches with it both applications, one of which has
been dealt with in our disposal of complaint No. CIC/SM/C/2008/00040, it will be
noted that the prayer in this case refers to responses from HQ Southern
Command dated 26.8.08 and 29.8.08, both of which refer to the application of
23.7.08 disposed of in file No. CIC/SM/C/2008/00040. In the present case,
therefore, there has been no first appeal against the information provided by
order of the Court dated 23.2.08 referred to by Brig. M. Pattar in disposing of his
first appeal in the present case for information being examined in this appeal.
The appeal was heard on 4.12.2008 through videoconference. The
following are present:
Appellant at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Col. A.D. Nargolkar
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Brig. P. Chakraborty, CPIO
Col. A. K. Vyas, Dir. RTI
Col. B. S. Raju, Col. – MS Legal
Maj. M. Gahlot, GSO -1 (Legal)
2
Respondent at NIC Studio, Pune
Col. Bishnoi, Representing Southern Command
Appellant Col. Nargolkar submitted copy of an order of the High Court of
Bombay in WP No. 5674/2008 – Col. A. D. Nargolkar vs. Union of India & Ors.
which reads as follows:
“Counsel appearing for the respondent states that they have
already provided copy and also states that they will provide another
copy of the documents within two weeks from today, of the findings
of the court of inquiry proceedings, so far as the court of enquiry
proceedings finds the petitioner guilty of any charge. In view of the
statement made nothing survives in this petition. The same is
disposed of accordingly.”
Whereas respondents submitted that the complete set of all documents
have been provided, appellant Col. Nargolkar submitted that while the findings of
the Court of Enquiry have been provided, the proceedings have not.
DECISION NOTICE
What this appeal amounts to is a request that we sit in judgment upon
whether the decision of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay have been fully
complied with or not. This is clearly a task for that Court which has in fact passed
the ruling. Although the quest for information is indeed within the jurisdiction of
this Commission, when this quest has been met by an order of a judicial Court,
even though this were independent of the case before us, it will be moot whether
there is any case for interference by this quasi-judicial authority. In our view,
there is no such ground. Should appellant Col. Nargolkar feel that the orders of
the High Court of Judicature of Bombay stand transgressed, he will have to seek
relief from that Court. This complaint is therefore dismissed.
Reserved in the hearing this decision is announced on 10th day of
December 2008 in the open Court.
3
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to all the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
10.12.2008
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
10.12.2008
4