Shri Prabhat Kumar vs Central Administrative Tribunal … on 6 July, 2009

                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                          Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00058 dated 28.1.2008
                            Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19


Appellant       -          Shri Prabhat Kumar
Respondent          -      Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)


Facts

:

By an application of 19.4.07 Shri Prabhat Kumar of Kankar Bagh, Patna applied
to the Director, (Administrative Tribunal), Department of Personnel & Training,
seeking the following information:

“I may kindly be informed as to what is rationale behind keeping the
older cases in sine die and giving priority to fresh cases and
whether the same is not a gross injustice”

To this Shri Prabhat Kumar received a reply dated 23.5.07 from Shri Sanjay
Sharma, Dy. Registrar, CAT to which organization, DOPT appears to have
transferred this matter through a letter of 27.4.07, as follows:

“certain cases were decided at the admission stage either at the
time of first hearing or in course of hearing under the heading
Admission (On Notice) and a few cases have been heard and
disposed of owing to the circumstances of the case they were taken
up on priority basis.”

Specifying that the question asked by him was whether the delaying of
older cases sine die was “not a gross injustice”, Shri Prabhat Kumar moved an
appeal before the Registrar CAT alleging that the information requested has not
been given. Upon this, Shri R. Pande, Registrar, CAT in his order of 12/16-7-07
has ordered as follows:

“the cases admitted for hearing are being taken in chronological
order and in certain cases the matters are disposed of either at the
time of first hearing or in course of hearing of cases under the
hearing “Admission (On Notice)”, which seems to be justified.
Owing to the circumstances of the case, a very few cases are being
taken up on priority basis, which have been heard and disposed of.
However, the Benches have been requested to dispose of old case
expeditiously.”

1

Shri Prabhat Kumar has then moved his second appeal before us with the
following prayer:

“The cases may be dealt with in terms of Sec. 19 & 20 of the RTI
Act, 2005.”

He specifically pleaded that the information sought by him merits suo moto
disclosure as per sec. 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005.

The appeal was heard by videoconference on 6.7.2009. The following are
present:

Appellant at NIC Studio, Patna
Shri Prabhat Kumar
Shri R. K. Rai

Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.

Shri N. Ramamurthy, Registrar
Shri Anil Srivastava, Jt. Registrar
Shri Sanjay Sharma, Dy. Registrar.

Shri Ramamurthy, Registrar submitted that appellant had wanted his case
to be heard early and had moved applications of 4.4.07 and 18.4.07 before CAT
with that objective. Both these applications were rejected. Such rejection is at
the sole discretion of the Court. It was also submitted by Shri Sanjay Sharma,
Dy. Registrar that as per Rule 47 of the CAT Rules of Practice, 1993, that it is
open to appellant to get such information as he seeks regarding the disposal of
his case. He also challenged the allegation that the cases had been adjourned
sine die but submitted that the remedy against the decision of CAT lay only in
Writ Petition before the High Court.

Shri R. K. Rai, assisting appellant Shri Prabhat Kumar on the other hand
submitted that as per information received by him chronology of receipt had been
violated and disparity in disposal has resulted from deliberate discrimination. He
stated categorically that he has information that cases up to 2004 were being
adjourned whereas subsequent cases are being decided upon. Upon this

2
Registrar Shri Ramamurthy placed before us copies of Decisions of CAT dated
11.5.07 on the application No. OA No. 287 of 2004 filed by Shri Prabhat Kumar,
appellant in this case and in CIC/AT/A/2006/00586 of Sept. 18, 2007 Shri
Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal before the CIC. In
the latter case, he has quoted from our decision w.r.t. sec. 4(1)(d) as follows:

“Sec. 4(1)(d) does not apply to a judicial proceedings conducted by
a Court or a Tribunal as it refers only to administrative and quasi-
judicial decisions of public authorities.”

In the decision of Shri Prabhat Kumar’s case, Shri A. Surender Registrar-in-

Charge has noted as follows:

“the applicant filed an MA 379 of 2006 for fixing an early date of
hearing on 13.7.06 and on 14.8.06. The Court after hearing the
learned counsel for both the parties and having been opposed by
the learned counsel for the other side, the Court held as under :

“Many cases are pending which are much older than this
case. In the circumstances, unless there is some extremely
urgent ground, hearing should not be preponed.

In that view of the matter, the prayer of the applicant is
rejected and the MA is dismissed, accordingly.”

Thereafter, the applicant once again filed an MA on 4.4.07 for fixing
an early date of hearing which was numbered as MA 154/2007.
The matter came up before the Court on 18.4.2007 and the Court
upon hearing learned counsel for the applicant held as under:

“This is an application for early hearing of OA No. 287 of
2004.

2. Obviously, a large number of older cases are pending
hearing awaiting their turn. In that view of the matter,
it is not proper to list the cases of 2004 ahead of the
older cases.

3. Accordingly, the M.A. is dismissed.”

Appellant Shri Prabhat Kumar however argued that the information
sought is on administrative matters, not on judicial proceedings

DECISION NOTICE

3
This clearly is a case wherein appellant Shri Prabhat Kumar is of the view
that injustice has been done to him by not deciding his case before others, which
according to him were filed subsequently. CAT has decided upon this question,
which is the appropriate authority for this purpose. The Central Information
Commission can only help appellant Shri Prabhat Kumar to obtain information
that he does not have, which may be held by CAT. In this case appellant has
stated clearly before us that he has information that would indicate an injustice
having been done to him. In that case, the purpose of the RTI Act 2005 stands
served. If on his obtaining such information Shri Prabhat Kumar nurses a
grievance, which he evidently does, the appropriate authority to seek redress in
this case is not this Commission. At any rate, on the issue that Shri Prabhat
Kumar is agitating, CAT has already ruled and remedy, therefore, lies in
preferring a Writ Petition before the High Court.

It is not possible for information to be created in order to service an RTI
application. In the present case, what appellant Shri Prabhat Kumar is seeking in
reference to Sec. 4(1)(d) is that such information since it affects him, should be
created and published. The “right to information”, however, extends to only such
information as is held or under the control of the concerned public authority. In
this case Registrar Shri Ramamurthy has offered to place all records concerning
his case before appellant Shri Prabhat Kumar, should he wish to examine these.
There is clearly nothing further that can be done under the RTI Act in response to
Shri Prabhat Kumar’s application. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

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

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
6.7.2009

4
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
6.7.2009

5