In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SM/A/2011/00099AD
Date of Hearing : July 13, 2011
Date of Decision : July 13, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri A. Mohamed Ansar,
H.No. 254I/4/73,
Ponnagar, Jagir Ammapalayam,
Salem 636 302
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Supreme Court of India
Office of the Registrar
Tilak Marg
New Delhi
Represented by: Ms. Smita Vats Sharma, CPIO, Shri Ashu Ahuja, B.O. and Shri Devdatt Kamat,
Advocate
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SM/A/2011/00099AD
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 22.05.2010, filed with the CPIO, Supreme Court of
India, New Delhi, wanted to obtain the following clarification in respect of the judgment No. Civil
Appeal 3355/1998 of Supreme Court of India:
“1. Who will implement the “Work Man” Status?
2. What are benefits of the Work Man as regard the Status and financial Benefits etc as
par with the employee of the Banks?
2. The PIO, on 14.062010, informed the Applicant that his query does not identify any material
information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTIAct and that it is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of
the duties of the CPIO , Supreme Court of India under RTI, to interpret the law, and the
judgments/orders of the Court. The Applicant, aggrieved with the PIO’s reply, filed his 1stappeal with
the Appellate Authority(AA)on 23.06.2010 and received a decision dated 23.07.2010 from the AA,
endorsing the PIO’s view. The Appellant, thereafter, filed the present petition before the Commission
on 10.08.2010 requesting that the judgment of the Supreme Court may be directed to be
implemented by the organizations concerned.
Decision
3. Heard submissions.
4. I am entirely in agreement with the AA’s decision that the Appellant has not sought any information,
and instead has made an attempt to obtain clarification with respect to the judgment of the Supreme
Court which is beyond the purview of the RTIAct.
4. In view of the above, the present appeal cannot be allowed. Rejected.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri A. Mohamed Ansar,
H.No. 254I/4/73,
Ponnagar, Jagir Ammapalayam,
Salem 636 302
2. The Appellate Authority
Supreme Court of India
Office of the Registrar
Tilak Marg
New Delhi
3. The Public Information Officer
Supreme Court of India
Office of the Registrar
Tilak Marg
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC