CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000263 dated 13.3.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Jai Prakash
Respondent - Supreme Court of India (SCI)
Decision announced: 9.7.2010
Facts
:
By an application of 15.7.08 Shri Jai Prakash of Patna sought the
following information from CPIO, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:
“1. I filed an appeal in Supreme Court, Delhi in SLP No.
18896/2004 which was dismissed on 24.9.2004. I want
copies of all documents, applications, papers filed by the
Advocate of respondents.
2. Detailed reasons, pointwise for dismissal of above SLP may
kindly be provided.
3. Ld. Counsel of respondents, Shri S.S. Nayyar Hussain, in
the above SLP, who later on became Hon’ble Judge Sh. S.N.Hussain, had
decided the case in CW JC No. 2401/2003. Is it legally correct under the
law? Please intimate with full details of law governing such cases. For
your convenience and ready reference, I am enclosing a photo copy of
Daily Cause List of Patna High Court dated 25.8.2004 in which my case is
at the top of list for orders.
4. Is it a violation of human rights to decide a case with pre
prejudiced mind, without providing any hearing in the case on the points
raised by the petitioner or not in the above CW JC?
5. Is it not a violation of human rights to dispose above SLP
without discussing the points raised in the above SLP which includes a
copy of letter No. 2231 dated 23.8.2004 which has been sent to Bihar
State Road Construction Corpn? Ltd. by the Road Construction
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Engineering Division? I am enclosing photo
copy of the same.
6. Will the above SLP be treated as disposed of or will it be
considered again for a hearing?
7. Please intimate in legal terms, whether all documents in CW
JC No. 2401/2003 will be treated as dismissed/disposed or not?
8. Please intimate what will be the action on the part of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, Delhi in the case under CWJC & SLP No. 2401/2003
which has been dismissed and after its dismissal the respondents have
issued amendments in the jobs to be carried out (i.e. widening of roads /
change in the map for flyovers etc) due to which now land of the petitioner
1
is not required for such purposes. Based on the wrong intentions, wrong
statements, carelessness, conspiracy, dictatorship, wrong conceptions
and filing of wrong affidavit by the respondents, house of the petitioner has
been demolished after acquiring the land. Kindly furnish full details.
9. Due to wrong intentions / decisions of the respondents, my
case described in above referred SLP No. 2231 dated 23.8.2004 (copy
enclosed) could not be finalized till date. By misguiding the Court the
respondents have obtained wrong decision in their favour i.e. they
managed to get the case of the appellant dismissed. Now that I have
received copies of all the documents including maps etc. which clearly
show that respondents have done conspiracy, dictator ship, disobedience
of orders, encroachments, tempering with records. These documents
show that decisions should have been taken in my favour. Kindly guide
me as to in which court (Supreme Court/ High Court / Senior Court) I can
apply for justice.
10. Kindly provide guidance as to where a person tired and fed
up of circumstances, who could not get justice even from the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, should appeal for justice / transparency.
11. After decision dated 25.8.2004 announced in CWJC No.
2401/2003 and dated 24.9.2004 in SLP No. 18896/2004 dismissing the
case, respondents have provided me with a new map which differs from
old maps dated 31.1.01 and 30.5.04. In this map portion of my land has
not been shown as required for widening of road and construction of
flyover. Please intimate, as to whether change in the map after decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is a fraud with the Court or not. If yes, what
action can be taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India?
12. I want to get the matter of misappropriation of funds,
irregularities, carelessness, disobedience of orders, tempering with map in
widening of Chirayatod Flyover, investigated thorough independent
agency. Will Supreme Court New Delhi accept the appeal for hearing
because my above SLP had been dismissed without hearing me/my view
points?”
To this Shri Jai Prakash received a response from CPIO Shri Ashok
Kumar, Addl. Registrar dated 18.7.08 informing him as follows:
“Special Leave Petition (C ) No. 18896 of 2004 titled Jai Prakash
vs. State of Bihar & Ors. was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on
24.9.2004. The record of the file has been weeded out.
You are further informed that copy of the judicial record can be
obtained under Order XII, Supreme Court Rules, 1966 on payment
of prescribed fee and charges.”
2
Aggrieved with this response, Shri Jai Prakash moved an appeal before
the Appellate Authority of which we have no copy on record but it is registered as
appeal No. 87/2008. Upon this, Shri M. P. Bhadran, Appellate Authority,
Supreme Court of India in his order of 15.9.08 held as follows:
“The grievance of the appellant is that no information has been
supplied to him by the CPIO in respect of points 2 to 12 as
mentioned in his application dated 15.7.2008. The appellant
submitted that he wants the copies of documents filed by the
respondents in the above SLP. The appellant has no case that he
had applied for copies of the documents as per the provisions of
the Supreme Court Rules. Even before me he has no case that he
has filed application to obtain the copies of documents in the above
SLP. The appellant also wanted to know on what grounds the SLP
was dismissed by the Hon’ble Court. Since the SLP has already
been disposed of and the record also has been weeded out, no
further information can be supplied by the CPIO. I find no reason to
disagree with the impugned order.”
Appellant’s prayer before us in second appeal is as below:
“I want to appear personally or through representative in the
hearing. Therefore, I may be given advance information of the
date of hearing. Simultaneously, I would like to request you to
kindly give your decision in the matter only after hearing the
appeal.”
The appeal was heard through video conference on 9.7.10. The following
are present:
Appellant
Shri Jai Prakash
Shri Maninarayan
Respondents
Shri Devadatt Kamat, Advocate for SCI
Ms. Asha Ahuja, Br. Officer, SCILearned Counsel for Supreme Court of India Shri Devadatt Kamat
presented his vakalatnama, which has been placed on record.
It was explained to appellant Shri Jai Prakash that insofar as the question
No. 1 was concerned, the information held by the Registrar of the Supreme Court
3
has indeed been provided to him, in light of the fact that the documents with
regard to the case in question have been weeded out. However, for the
remaining questions, as already advised both by the CPIO & Appellate Authority,
appellant Shri Jai Prakash was expected to apply for the information under the
appropriate rules, which are contained in order XII of the SCI Rules, 1966. Upon
this, Shri Jai Prakash submitted that he had indeed made an application under
order 12 SCI Rules, 1966 on 15th Sept., 08, a copy of the same has been
scanned and received on internet during the hearing and carries the stamp of the
Supreme Court of India “Filed on 15th Sept., 08”. However, because this
application is not the subject of the present appeal, the Learned Counsel for
respondents Shri Devadatt Kamat was unable to offer any information regarding
the status of this application.
DECISION NOTICE
It is clear that the information sought by appellant Shri Jai Prakash under
the SC RTI Rules has been provided to him and he has also been advised the
procedure required to access the remaining information. It would now appear
that the means of accessing information under the SC Rules, 1966 had also
been resorted to by appellant Shri Jai Prakash through his application of 15.9.08.
However, the disposal of that application is not at issue in this appeal. Therefore,
whereas the appeal with regard to the application of 15.7.08 is dismissed, a copy
of the application of 15.9.08 is appended with this Decision Notice. CPIO, SCI
Shri Raj Kumar Arora, Addl Registrar will now process this application in
accordance with the rules under intimation to appellant Shri Jai Prakash.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
4
Chief Information Commissioner
9.7.2010
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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
9.7.2010
5