Mr. Satish Chander Bhardwaj vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 19 July, 2010

                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000499 dated 21.4.2009
                  Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19


Appellant       -         Shri S. C. Bhardwaj
Respondent          -     Central Administrative Tribunal
                        Heard & Decision announced: 19.7.2010


Facts

:

By application of 24.9.08 Shri S. C. Bhardwaj of Tokarkhada, Silvassa,
Dadra & Nagar Haveli applied to CPIO Shri D. K.Pande, Dy. Registrar, CAT
Lucknow seeking the following information:

“Please provide the certified copy the document which was typed
and handwritten and signed by me. I want the handwritten matter
in a readable version with Hon’ble Member’s signature. I also want
certified information why the said registered M.A. is not listed for
the hearing and why the order is not passed in the open court by
the Hon’ble Members. Why Shri Rizzavi first refused to give the
said documents? Why he is playing fraud, he has taken the
applicant signature on the hand written note which was not
readable and later when he was giving the photocopy of that
document he is hiding the typed matter and the applicant’s
signature. Why His Lordship is not hearing the said M.A. and why
the recall of order which was reserved for the pronouncement on
dated 27.8.2008 for the dated 4.9.2008 was not delivered in the
interest of justice.”

To this, Shri S. C. Bhardwaj received a response from CPIO Shri Pande of
30.9.08 informing him as follows:

“Please find enclosed herewith the copy of order dated 25.8.2008
which has already been received by you on 27.8.2008. As regards
your other queries the same can be answered on the judicial on the
judicial side only. Your attention is also invited to Chapter XI of
CAT Rules of Practice, 1993.”

The attached handwritten note reads as below:

“When the O.A. was dismissed on 3.2.2008 against which the
applicant SLV was also admitted, how this application for revival of
O.A. 399/98 and other order is maintainable and as such M.A. is
returned. “

1

Shri Bhardwaj, however, has moved an appeal on 14.11.08 pleading as
follows:

“He has also not given the copy of typed matter and the readable
version of handwritten matter.

He has also not given the name of the appellate authority (RTI) in
his reply letter. I was not able to get the name of the AA so it took
time to file this appeal.’

Upon this, Shri S. C. Bhardwaj has received, through CPIO Shri D. K.

Pande, a copy of the Appellate Authority Shri M. Kanthaiah, Member (J) CAT
Lucknow Bench’s order, which holds as follows:

“Appellant called absent. Notice returned un-served as no other
address has been furnished hence this authority has no option,
except to close.”

Shri Bhardwaj had then moved a second appeal before us with the
following prayer:

“The RTI Query dated 24.9.08 was sent to the PIO Shri Pandey,
CAT, Lucknow but he failed to provide the answer to the queries.
His reply is deemed refusal. The applicant has old and very sick
mother suffering from Cardiac Disease, Type II Diabetes and
Hypertension but department is not giving the transfer to the
applicant to New Delhi. The respondents and the Judicial Members
are harassing the applicant by denying justice in the open court.”

The appeal was heard with arrangement for videoconference on 19.7.10.

The following are present in NIC Studio, Lucknow:

Respondents
Shri D. K. Pande, CPIO, CAT Lucknow
Shri H. S. Srivastava, ACPIO, CAT Lucknow

Although appellant Sh. S. C. Bhardwaj had been informed by Notice dated
30th June, 2010 regarding the hearing, he has opted not to be present. However,
when the Office telephone number provided by Shri Bhardwaj was contacted, the
Registry was informed that Shri Bhardwaj is on leave. We have subsequently
received an Email under Cc dated 19.7.10 addressed to one Shri Sunil Alphine
by appellant Shri S. C. Bhardwaj stating as follows:

2

“I am sick and on medical leave so I am unable to attend today VC
time 5.00pm.

Please don’t wait for me.”

DECISION NOTICE

The Right to Information, Central Information Commission (Appeal
Procedure) Rules, 2005 of 28.10.05 is clear in terms of the personal presence of
the Appellant/Complainant in a hearing before the Central Information
Commission. This is covered by rule 7 which reads as follows:

“Rule 7(2)
The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may at his
discretion at the time of hearing of the appeal or complaint by the
Commission, be present in person or through his duly authorized
representative or may opt not to be present1.”

Admittedly, these are the rules governing the procedure to be followed by
the Central Information Commission. Nevertheless, the principle will also apply
to an Appellate Authority leaving the discretion to attend or not to attend a
hearing to the appellant/complainant. In this case, this discretion has not been
allowed. For this reason, the order of the First Appellate Authority Shri M.

Kanthaiah Member (J) CAT Lucknow is set aside. He will now re-examine the
appeal of Shri Bhardwaj in light of Sec. 2(j) of the RTI Act with a stipulation that
should there be any further information that is required to be provided to
appellant Shri Bhardwaj, this will be provided free of charge u/s 7(6). The appeal
is thus allowed. There will be no cost.

Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
19.7.2010

1
Underlined by us.

3

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
19.7.2010

4