288KhemLalBansalVsAddlDistJudgePbHyHC14 05 8 1
5/18/2009 12:07:54 Deepak
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000288
Appellant: Shri Khem Lal Bansal
Public Authority: Civil Judge, District Court,
UT of Chandigarh
Date of Hearing: 14/05/2009
Date of Decision: 14/05/2009
FACTS
:-
The matter, in short, is that a Civil Suit No. 941 of 2006 filed by Kulvinder Singh
was decided by Shri Sumit Ghai, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandigarh, vide order
dated 30/10/2007 wherein the suit was dismissed. Shri Kulwinder Singh had filed an
application dated 10/10/2007 before the said court with the request that he may be
allowed to deposit an amount of Rs.2000/- per month as rental in respect of Property N.
136/140/17, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. Shri Sumit Ghai had made the
following endorsement dated 28/03/2008 on the application of Shri Kulvinder Singh:-
“Rent be deposited at own responsibility.”
2. It is in this context that by his RTI application dated 29/10/2008, the Appellant
had sought information on 04 paras. Para No.3 thereof is extracted below:-
“Whether Mr. Kulvinder Singh was having any order of any Court
against which he can deposit Rs.20,000/- with the trial Court/Treasury on
28/29-03-2008. Copy of the same is required.”
3. The CPIO vide order dated 05/11/2008, had provided information on other paras
to the Appellant but had kept quiet on the para quoted above.
4. Aggrieved with the said order, the Appellant had filed first Appeal before the first
Appellate Authority. The first Appellate Authority had decided the matter vide order
dated 06/01/2009 in which the Appeal was dismissed. The operative para of the order is
extracted below:-
“It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant himself attached
the order of the Hon’ble High Court with regard to deposit of rent. If the
applicant was not satisfied with that order of learned Civil Judge, Jr.
Division dated 28.3.2008 he can challenge the same by filing
revision/appeal as the law permitted. But under the RTI Act this authority
288KhemLalBansalVsAddlDistJudgePbHyHC14 05 8 2
5/18/2009 12:07:54 Deepakcannot ask the learned Judge as to in which capacity he has passed the
order dated 28.3.2008 with regard to deposit of rent.”
5. The present Appeal is directed aginst the orders of CPIO/AA.
6. The matter was heard on 14/05/2009. The appellant appeared before the
Commission and would submit that he is entitled to this information under Section
4(1)(d) of the RTI Act. It is also his submission that the information requested for by
him is not barred from disclosure u/s8(1)(d) of the Act. His overall submission is that
the CPIO and AA erred in not providing him this information.
7. In this context it may be apt to mention that a similar matter had come up for
hearing before this Commission in Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITAT, New Delhi. A Full
Bench of this Commission had decided this matter vide decision dated 18/09/2007. Para
49 of the said decision is extracted below:-
“It is our conclusion, therefore, that given that a judicial authority
must function with total independence and freedom, it should be found
that an action initiated under the RTI Act impinges upon the authority of
that judicial body, the Commission will not authorize the use of the RTI
Act for any such disclosure requirement. Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act
is quite clear, which gives a total direction to the court or the tribunal to
decide as to what should be published. An information seeker should,
therefore, approach the concerned court or the tribunal if he intends to
have some information concerning a judicial proceeding and it is for the
concerned court or the tribunal to take a decision in the matter as to
whether the information requested is concerning judicial proceedings
either pending before it or decided by it can be given or not.”
The Full Bench of this Commission has categorically laid down that if any action
initiated under the RTI Act impinges on the authority of judicial body, the Commission
will not authorize the use of RTI Act for such purposes. It, thus, appears that RTI Act is
not the proper instrumentality and this Commission not the proper forum for soliciting
the impugned information. The grievances, if any, of the appellant can be redressed by
the higher judicial authority and not the Commission.
DECISION
8. In view of the above discussion, it is held that seeking information in regard to the
judicial order passed by Shri Sumit Ghai, Civil Judge , Chandigarh, u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI
Act is mis-conceived and not sustainable in law. The remedy lies elsewhere. It is open
for the Appellant to challenge the decision before the higher judicial forum. The Appeal,
thus, has no merit and is dismissed.
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
288KhemLalBansalVsAddlDistJudgePbHyHC14 05 8 3
5/18/2009 12:07:54 Deepak
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 2671 73 53
Fax: 011 2610 62 76