CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2009/000198 dated 28-3-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Complainant: Shri S.C. Bhardwaj;
Respondent: Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
Decision announced 28.5.'10
FACTS
By an application of 18-9-2008 Shri S.C. Bhardwaj of Silvassa, Dadra
& Nagar Haveli applied to APIO Shri V.K. Sinha, CAT, Mumbai seeking the
following information:
“I want to know that why the hearing of Miscellaneous
application nos. 505, 506, 507 in O. A. No. 293/2007, C. P. No.
02/2008, O. A. No. 840/2005, C. P. No. 62/2005 was adjourned
on dated 9.9.2008 by one Notification to the date 16.9.2008 who
has issued that Notification? Why the miscellaneous
applications were not heard? Why I was told that the said M. A.
will be heard on dated 9.9.08? Why Shri A. S. Bagga, M. A. not
heard the applicant when he appeared before the Hon’ble
Bench requesting for the hearing on date 11.8.2009 and
12.9.2008 or any date after 4.10.2008 etc? Why he is
adjourning the date for hearing without consulting the applicant?
Why on the board M. A. was listed but O. A. No. 840/2004 and
C. P. No. 62/2005 was not written? Why these M. A. were
pending for listing and hearing before the Hon’ble Tribunal,
Mumbai for more than 2 months? When applicant is requesting
for the said M. A. before the Division Bench from the Principal
Bench, New Delhi than why it was not done? Why me M. A.
was placed before Shri A. S. Bagga, M.A.? What are the efforts
done by the Joint Registrar, Mrs. Padma T. for calling Division
Bench from the Principal Bench, New Delhi on the applicant
prays in these M.A. and other letters? Why administrative staffs
of the Hon’ble Tribunal are wasting time and playing fraud along
with the respondents National Informatics Center (NIC)? Who
has allowed Shri Vinay Masurkar, Standing Counsel, UOI to file
the Miscellaneous application No. 536/2007 dated 19.7.07 and
Written Statement dated 31.7.2007 without filing his Memo of
Appearance? Why Shri S.S. Karkera, Standing Counsel of UOI
didn’t argue and didn’t plead for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and
69? What payments are claimed by the both the Standing
Counsels from the respondent (NIC)?
Please provide the names of the administrative staff involved in
above mentioned scandal and favour NIC Respondents who has
allowed Shri Masurkar to file fraudulent Speed Post photocopy1
of envelope (front side) only in M. P. No. 536/2007. Please
provide all the names of the administrative staffs of CAT-
Mumbai those are involved in the scandal and interfering in the
administration of justice. Why the original speed post envelope
is not summoned or called by the Deputy Registrar, Mrs. M. R.
Joshi and Shri Jog Singh, M. J. and Smt. Rama Dass, M. A.
When the applicant lodged the complaint?
I want the certified copy of the Notification through which the
case was adjourned for the date 16.9.2008 and the above
mentioned desired detailed informations by giving the names of
the administrative staffs of the CAT-Mumbai those who are
involved in the scandal and interfering in the administrative of
justice in O.A. No. 293/2007 in C. P. No. 02/ 2008.”
To this Shri S.C. Bhardwaj received a response from APIO Shri V.K.
Sinha, dated 14-10-08 informing him as follows:
“I am to inform you that OA No. 293/2007 was adjourned to
16.9.2008 by Notification dated 9.9.2008.”
Not satisfied appellant Shri Bhardwaj moved an appeal directly before
this Commission praying as follows:
“1. To issue direction to the APIO-CPIO and AA to furnish
certified information, documents and also allow to inspect
the records of the O. A. No. 293/2007 as per the RTI
application dated 18.9.2008. The applicant didn’t receive
any reply of his queries from the APIO, Shri Sinha. The
applicant prefer to go for the appeal before the Hon’ble
CIC, New Delhi under Section 18 (1) (c ) and request that
a direction may kindly be given to the APIO, CPIO and
AA to give reply of the RTI application dated 18.9.2008.
2. To order inquiry against the APIO, CPIO & AA for playing
fraud and mischief and not implementing RTI Act, 2005.
3. To impose penalties and give direction for disciplinary
action against APIO, CPIO & AA for not implementing RTI Act, 2005 in
the right sprit.”
In his grounds for prayer Shri Bhardwaj has submitted that “the
appellate authority (AA) is Hon’ble Member Shri Bagga, M. J. who is also
holding the post of Head of Department. He cannot be judge in his own RTI
application dated 18.9.2008. He himself is involved in passing wrong
judgment and favouring NIC.”.
2
In response to our appeal notice we have received a letter of 18-3-
2010 from CPIO Ms. Padma T, Jt. Registrar, CAT, Mumbai submitting as
follows:
“The APIO had replied that OA 293/2007 was adjourned to
16.9.2008 by notification dated 9.9.2008. A certified copy of the
notification is enclosed.
As far as other queries raised by the complainant in his letter
dated 18.9.2008 the CPIO is not in a position or solve the
problems or furnish reply to hypothetical questions as CPIO is
not required to supply the same under the Act.”
Further Ms. Padma has submitted as follows:
“The applicant is in the habit of sending various RTI
applications before the Tribunal. So far he was filed several
applications to which this Tribunal has been giving replies. The
copies of all the replies to his RTI applications are enclosed for
information please. Moreover the address written in his
applications to which the replies had been sent was almost
received back in this office and later on collected by hand by the
complainant.”
In this context she has quoted from an order of the Tribunal of 10-2-09
in which the learned Judges have held as follows with regard to Shri S.C.
Bhardwaj, appellant in the present case:
“6. We find that the applicant is in a habit of moving
Miscellaneous petitions and making grievances against
the officers and the Government Advocate also. It would
be appropriate for us to warn him against moving such
Misc. Petition. After these orders, there is nothing
pending before us. All the Misc. Petitions stand disposed
of by this order. We are not passing any order saddling
any cost against the applicant. We have heard him very
patiently that like to warn him that if in future Misc.
Petitions are filled without any basis, heavy cost would be
saddled upon him. Ordered accordingly.”
A copy of this response has also been endorsed to appellant Shri S.C.
Bhardwaj. The appeal was heard through videoconference on 28-5-2010.
The following are present.
Appellant (at NIC studio Kochi)
Shri S. C. Bhardwaj
Respondents (at NIC Studio, Mumbai)
Jt. Registrar, CAT, Mumbai
Registrar, CAT, Mumbai
3
Dy. Registrar, CAT, Mumbai
Since the response of APIO Shri V.K. Sinha of CAT, Mumbai had been
sent to appellant Shri Bhardwaj he was asked as to what was the reason for
his submitting that he had received no reply, appellant submitted that the
response received by him was equivalent to no response, since he has not
been informed as to why his miscellaneous application was adjourned. He
has also questioned the quoting of the observation of the learned Judges of
CAT by CPIO Ms. Padma T. which has been quoted by us above, as in his
view this had no bearing on his present appeal.
DECISION NOTICE
In this case a response has, in fact, been provided to appellant to his
RTI application within the time limit mandated. Had he considered this
response inadequate Shri S.C. Bhardwaj was free to move an appeal u/s
19(1) Clearly, as explained by CPIO Ms. Padma T in her response to the
appeal notice, the remaining queries were more in the nature of seeking an
opinion of the CPIO than in asking for information. A certified copy of the
notification has also been provided to him, as asked for. It would appear that
having been barred by the Tribunal from making further miscellaneous
petitions before the CAT Shri S.C. Bhardwaj has now sought recourse to
moving such petition through use of the RTI Act.
Because the 1st Appellate Authority in CAT Mumbai has not addressed
the remaining issues with regard to his RTI application by Shri S.C. Bhardwaj
he is free to move a first appeal before that public authority u/s 19 (1). He has
shown us no reason other than his objection to the appointment of Justice
Bagga as appellate authority for moving an appeal directly to this
Commission. As we have noted, under Section 19 (1) the first appeal will lie
with “such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information
Officer in each public authority”. Consequently, if Shri Bhardwaj has objection
to moving an appeal before the designated Appellate Authority he is free to
seek a hearing by any other senior officer of CAT, Mumbai. He has clearly
4
not done so in order to circumvent the ruling on miscellaneous petitions of
CAT, Mumbai. His appeal under the RTI Act can, therefore, be deemed as
only frivolous and vexatious and is, therefore, dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
28-5-2010
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
28-5-2010
5