CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000453 dated 30.3.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Pt. Munish Kumar Sharma
Respondent - Supreme Court of India (SCI)
Heard & Decision announced: 15.7.2010
Facts
:
By an application of 14.1.09 Pt. Manish Kumar Sharma of Karnal
(Haryana) applied to the Chief Justice of India and Prime Minister of India stating
as follows:
1. “There is no section in the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 under
which any employee can be treated as Labour Supplier / Contractor.
2. Giving judgment against the rules is unconstitutional and the
Hon’ble Labour Commission has not powers to deliver judgment against
the rules.
3. BSNL has cheated and disgraced the judiciary by declaring
me Labour Contractor without proving the same and without observing the
extent rules on the matter applicable in whole of the country.
I have acquired complete qualifications under Sec. 12(5) of the RTI
Act, which are not possessed by any PIO in the country. The same
are LLB in law (2) Master Degree in Public Administration, (3) P.G.
J.M.C. in Journalism and Mass Communication, (4) B.Com. Degree
in Accounts and Administration (5). In public Services, I have
served as outstanding leader from School to College Level and
from University to 10-15 years. For my services rendered with
Relief Organization in helping District Administration at the time of
Gujarat Earthquake, I was rewarded at Karnal by Hon’ble Governor
of Haryana and I use to write regularly to Government and Hon’ble
Use for improving their efficiency.”
To this Pt. Manish Kumar Sharma received a response dated Feb. 2, 2009
from CPIO Shri Raj Pal Arora, Addl. Registrar Supreme Court of India informing
him as follows:
“I write to say that your request cannot be acceded to by the CPIO,
Supreme Court of India under Right to Information Act, 2005 as it
relates to judicial matter i.e. SLP No. 2737-2738 of 2004 (CC No.1
374-375 of 2004) which has already been dismissed by this Hon’ble
Court on 27.1.2004.”
Pt. Manish Kumar Sharma has them moved an appeal again addressed to
the Chief Justice of India through Registrar SCI seeking answers to a new set of
questions, as below:
“1. How the Labour Commission, High Court Chandigarh and
Supreme Court have considered me as Labour Contractor
when I have not supplied even a single person to the BSNL
or Telecommunication Department, Govt. of India, Karnal
(Haryana)
2. Has the judgments delivered by the Labour Commission,
Chandigarh, High Court Chandigarh and Supreme Court been given under
rules of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 ?
3. Under which Sec. of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 an
employee can be considered as Labour Supplier?
4. How the Labour Commission, High Court Chandigarh and
Supreme Court have powers to decide a case outside the jurisdiction of
Industrial Dispute Act?
5. Why should I not be provided justice within ten days after
conducting a judicial enquiry for obtaining wrong judgment from Labour
Court Chandigarh, High Court Chandigarh and Supreme Court by
misguiding them?
6. Please convey, what punishment will be given to those who
have disgraced the Judiciary by playing tactics and misguiding them.
7. How will judiciary compensate me for destroying my future
career, economic condition of my family, mental and physical torture etc.
Kindly provide information urgently as mandated under Sec. 7(i) of RTI Act
as more than 30 days have already elapsed and Sec. 20 of the RTI Act
has also been violated. ”
Upon this, Shri M. P. Bhadran, Appellate Authority, in his order on Appeal
No. 29/2009 delivered on 5.3.09 has directed, as follows:
“The request of the Appellant is to conduct a judicial inquiry about
the reason for dismissal of his request by the concerned
Authorities. According to him the request was disallowed by the
authorities due to fraud.
The CPIO, Supreme Court of India has informed the Appellant that
the request of the Appellant as per his application dated 14.1.2009
addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India cannot be
accepted since it relates to SLP Nos. 2737-2738 of 2004 (CC No.2
374-375 of 2004) which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India on 27.1.2004.
I find no error in the impugned order of the CPIO, Supreme Court of
India.”
Pt. Munish Kumar Sharma has then moved his second appeal before us
pleading as below:
“It is requested to Hon’ble Commission that ignoring the
shortcomings in my 2nd appeal, orders be issued to achieve
the objective of Right to Information Act. Justice may be
achieved for constitutional rights. I will remain obliged to your
honour.
The facts furnished in this appeal are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief, which is being made against the 1st
appeal.”
The appeal was heard on 15.7.10 through videoconference. The following
are present:
Appellant (at NIC Studio Karnal)
Pt. Munish Kumar Sharma
Respondents
Shri Devadatt Kamat, Advocate for SCI
Ms. Asha Ahuja, Br. Officer, SCIShri Devadatt Learned Counsel for Supreme Court of India presented his
vakalatnama, which has been placed on record. Appellant Pt. Munish Kumar
Sharma was asked what request for information he sought and his attention was
invited to the definition of the “Right to Information” as contained in Sec. 2(j). Pt.
Munish Kumar Sharma’s response was that grave injustice had been done to him
and he wished to have an answer and the reasons for this from the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India.
DECISION NOTICE
Sec. 2(j) of the RTI Act which defines ‘right to information’ is clear:
3
2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible
under this Act which is held by or under the control of any
public authority and includes the right to–
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or
records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies,
tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts
where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; ”
From the above it should be evident that this Commission has no authority
to order any action on any matter other than allowing access to records through
all means. In this case what Pt. Munish Kumar Sharma nurses is a grievance
against a judicial order. His remedy can only lie in using judicial means to obtain
what he perceives as justice. The appeal is, therefore, without merit and is
hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
15.7.2010
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
15.7.2010
4