Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000773SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 22 July 2011
Date of decision : 22 July 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ramesh Chandra,
F/o Shri Sudeepti Chandra,
2/118, Sector 2, Rajendera Nagar,
Shahibabad, Ghaziabad
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Information Commission
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Smt. Anita Gupta, Additional Secretary
(ii) Shri Tarun Kumar, Joint Secretary
(iii) Shri M.C. Sharma, CPIO
(iv) Shri G. Subramanian
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant did not turn up for the hearing today in spite of notice. The
Respondents were present and we heard their submissions
3. The Appellant had sought a number of information regarding a second
appeal which had been decided earlier by the CIC and in which the
Respondents of that case had challenged the order of the CIC in the High
CIC/WB/A/2009/000773SM
Court. The CPIO had provided the desired information in two instalments.
4. In the second appeal, the Appellant, after having given a complete
sequence of events, has expressed his displeasure over the fact that the CIC
has not filed any counter reply before the High Court where the Respondents of
the case had challenged its orders, implying that the CIC has not been making
adequate efforts to defend its own orders. The fact of the matter is that the
Appellant had sought certain information from one particular public authority
and not being satisfied with the response of the CPIO of that public authority,
had approached the CIC in second appeal. The CIC had passed orders
directing the said public authority to disclose the information and had also
imposed penalty on the CPIO concerned. The penalty orders of the CIC were
challenged by the CPIO/public authority in the High Court of Delhi which had
granted an interim stay in the matter.
5. During the hearing, it was reported that the CIC had not filed any counter
reply in this case as it was ordinarily the practice of the CIC not to defend its
orders before higher courts of law and not to become a party in such cases. It
was also reported that the outcome of the writ petition filed before the High
Court was not yet known.
6. What the Appellant seeks to know or wants from the CIC in this matter
does not strictly fall within the definition of information. Therefore, there is
nothing that we can direct the CPIO to disclose in this case. Since the Appellant
himself is a party to the case before the High Court, he should be aware of the
outcome of the case.
CIC/WB/A/2009/000773SM
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief 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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/WB/A/2009/000773SM