Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/A/2010/000199SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 10 August 2011
Date of decision : 10 August 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Subhash Chandra
Shree Vihar Shree Nagari, Wing A,
Bldg. C Flat No. 2, Behind Appu Ghar
Nigdi, Pune - 411 004.
Name of the Public Authority : The Central Public Information Officer,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Smt. Smita V Sharma, CPIO,
(ii) Shri S.K. Dubey, Advocate
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Hyderabad studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present in
our chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had sought a number of information regarding the action
taken on a complaint dated 19 February 2009 sent by a nonresident Indian
named Ramesh Chandra Hirway from the USA. The CPIO had informed him
that the desired information had already been sent on 6 July 2009 in response
to his previous RTI application dated 29 May 2009.
CIC/WB/A/2010/000199SM
4. During the hearing, the Appellant claimed not to have received any such
response from the CPIO of the Supreme Court. The Respondents claimed to
have sent that reply by registered post and showed us a copy of that reply. We
carefully perused the contents of that reply and found that the CPIO had duly
informed him that the complaint dated 19 February 2009 received from Ramesh
Chandra Hirway from the USA had been lodged(filed) since the Supreme Court
did not find it conforming to the parameters set out for a PIL. We are satisfied
that the reply of the CPIO dated 6 July 2009 satisfactorily answers all the
queries of the Appellant.
5. Since the Appellant claims not to have received it in the first place, we
direct the CPIO to send a copy of that letter once again to him within 10 working
days of receiving our order. We also direct him to send the photocopy of the
relevant file noting in which it was decided to lodge the complaint for not
conforming to the parameters set out for a PIL.
6. The Appellant drew our attention to the fact that he had paid some
money to the Supreme Court for receiving the information and that amount had
not been returned to him. From the records enclosed to the second appeal, it
appears that he had deposited Rs. 110 in the form of court fee stamps, a mode
of payment not permitted under the rules prescribed under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. Therefore, we cannot pass any order asking the CPIO of
the Supreme Court for returning the court fee stamps. We leave it to him to take
any action he thinks proper.
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
CIC/WB/A/2010/000199SM
(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/2010/000199SM