154IshwarSinghsharmaCPWD2511 7 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Block IV, 4Th Floor, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi-110067
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00154/LS
Appellant: Shri Ishwar Singh Sharma
Public Authority: Central Public Works Department
(through Shri Suresh Chandra,
Deputy Director (Admn. )
Date of Hearing: 31/10/2008
25/11/2008
Date of Decision: 25/11/2008
FACTS
:-
By his letter of 07/09/2007, the Appellant had requested DDG(W)(PIO) to furnish
him certain information in regard to the order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal in his favour on 17/05/2000 in OA No.2445/99 (Ishwar Singh Sharma Vs UOI
& Ors). CPIO vide his letter dated 01/10/2007 had informed the Appellant that CPWD
had filed an appeal against the CAT order in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide CW-
1237 of 2001 and had refused to provide information on the ground of the matter being
sub judice. The Appellant had field appeal against the order of CPIO vide his letter dated
16/10/2007. To this, the Appellate Authority had informed the Appellant that his letter
dated 16/03/2006 did not appear to have been received in his office and requested the
Appellant to supply a copy thereof for further action in the matter. Despite indicating the
requirement of Appellant’s letter dated 16/03/2006, surprisingly, the Appellate Authority
had upheld the decision of CPIO.
2. The present Appeal has been directed against the decision of the Appellate
Authority.
3. The matter was part heard on 31/10/2008. The Appellant did not appear before
the Commission. The Public Authority was represented by Shri Suresh Chandra, Deputy
Director (Admn.). Shri Suresh Chandra, Deputy Director (Admn.) drew my attention to
the fact that in his application dated 07/11/2007, the Appellant had mentioned that he had
directly sent a letter to DG(W) on 16/03/2006 and also to the fact that Appellate
Authority vide his letter dated 09/11/2007 had informed the Appellant that the aforesaid
letter did not appear to have been received in his office and requested him to supply a
copy of the same. Shri Chandra also submitted that the Appellant has not supplied a copy
of the said letter so far due to which the requisite information could not be furnished to
him, in addition to the fact that the matter is sub judice.
154IshwarSinghsharmaCPWD2511 7 2
4. As the Appellant could not appear before the Commission as he did not receive
the Commission’s notice, it was decided to adjourn the matter to 25/11/2008 to give him
an opportunity of hearing. The Appellant appeared before the Commission on this date
and submitted that the CAT had passed an order in his favaour granting him promotional
scale way back in 2000 but the same has not been implemented by CPWD. He also
submitted that the pendency of the matter in the High Court is no bar on providing him
information under the RTI Act. He also drew my attention to his application dated
07/09/2007 in which he had sought information as to why the CAT order have not been
implemented and the matters related therewith.
5. The question for consideration before this Commission is whether pendency of a
matter in the High Court is a bar on providing information to the Appellant. Neither
CPIO nor Appellate Authority have mentioned any specific provision of RTI Act under
which the information sought by the Appellant cannot be furnished to him. It is,
therefore, not clear to me as to under what specific provision of RTI Act, the information
sought by the Appellant is being denied to him. No doubt, clause (b) of section 8(1)
forbids providing of information which is expressly forbidden by any court of law or
tribunal etc. The Appellant states that there is no such prohibition by any court or
tribunal. Shri Suresh Chandra also did not bring any such prohibition to my notice when
he appeared before me on 31/10/2008. In this view of the matter, I hold that the
information sought by the Appellant has been unjustifiably denied to him.
DECISION
6. In view of the above discussion, CPIO is directed to provide point-wise
information to the appellant as requested by him in his letter dated 07/09./2007. At the
same time, the Appellant is also directed to furnish a copy of his letter dated 16/03/2006
addressed to DG(W) to CPIO in seven days time for enabling him to process the matter.
7. CPIO would comply with this order in two weeks time from the receipt of this
order.
8. The appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central 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.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Tele: 011-2616 26 62