CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000575
Dated, the 31st August, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Prasad Bhalchandra Vaidya
Respondents : Mumbai High Court
This matter came up for hearing through videoconferencing (VC)
on 11.08.2009 with the appellant present at NIC’s VC facility at Latur
and the respondents represented by the CPIO, Mrs.Uma Srivastava
present at NIC VC facility at Mumbai. Commission conducted the
hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 18.10.2008, replied to by the
CPIO on 20.11.2008 and by the Appellate Authority on 04.02.2009, is the
subject-matter of the second-appeal. As stated by the appellant in his
second-appeal petition, the points for decision now relate to certain
elements of his RTI-application, which are discussed below:-
Item at Table 1 (Column 2): “Total petitions transferred to single
bench after the judgement of Full Bench on April 30, 2008.”
3. It is seen that no response was provided to the appellant in
respect of this column in CPIO’s or the Appellate Authority’s replies.
Decision:
4. It is directed that within two weeks of the receipt of this order
CPIO shall provide to the appellant reply to the above query.
Item at Table 2 ( Columns 1 and 2): “Name of Hon. Justice to whom
specifically cases related to school and college tribunal were allotted
from 01.01.2005 and Names of Hon. Justice to whom specifically cases
related to Industrial Labour Tribunal were allotted from 01.01.2005”.
5. It is seen that the above information does not form part of the
communication which the CPIO and the Appellate Authority have sent to
the appellant.
AT-31082009-05.doc
Page 1 of 3
Decision:
6. It is, therefore, directed that within two weeks of the receipt of
this order, CPIO shall furnish a reply to the appellant in respect of the
above two items of query.
Item at (C): “Total number of civil applications filed and pending in
writ petitions pending under Maharashtra University Act 1994 and
Bombay University Act.”
7. CPIO, through his reply dated 20.11.2008, has furnished the
following information corresponding to the above query:-
“No. of C.A. filed in W.P. Under Maharashtra University Act – Nil
No. of C.A. filed in W.P. Under Bombay University Act – 08
No. of C.A. pending in W.P. Under Maharashtra University Act – Nil
No. of C.A. pending in W.P. Under Bombay University Act – 01”
8. According to the appellant, the above information was wrong. He
has not, however, stated how these were so. In the absence of any
specific reasons as to why the above disclosed information should be
treated as false, it is not possible to give any decision in the matter.
Decision:
9. Accordingly it is held that there shall be no further disclosure in
respect of this item of information.
Item at (f): “Decision of Full Bench taken in W.P. 6550 of 2006 is
applicable to writ petitions admitted before the filing of W.P. 6550 of
2006.”
Item at (g): “Whether Full Bench has taken the decision in W.P. 6550 of
2006, on April 30, 2008 as per the amendments in section 2
Maharashtra High Court (hearing of writ petitions by division bench and
abolition of Letter Patent) Act 1986”
Item at (h): “Whether the High Court has power and authority to
implement any amendments in any Act passed by Parliament / state
assembly without assent of President / Governor if High Court has such
powers, under which Act such powers are vested with High Court? Is
there any Constitutional provision?”
AT-31082009-05.doc
Page 2 of 3
10. CPIO’s reply to these queries was that the decisions of the Full
Bench were self-explanatory and that the powers of the High Court
were derived from Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution of
India.
11. Appellant has described this information as “wrong”, without
stating how this was wrong if at-all.
Decision (f, g & h):
12. I find no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO to the appellant.
These queries are clearly outside the scope of Section 2(f) as it would
require the CPIO to provide to the appellant explanations, elucidations
and reasons, which he is not obliged to do under Section 2(f) of the Act.
13. In view of the discussion above, the appeal is decided as directed.
14. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-31082009-05.doc
Page 3 of 3