CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Appeal No.CIC/A/3/2006

Dated: December 12, 2005

Right to Information Act – Section 19

Name of Appellant:  Subhash Chandra Agrawal, 1775, Kucha Lattushah, Dariba, Delhi

Name of Public Authority: Supreme Court of India

DECISION

 Decision appealed against: Dismissal of appeal by Registrar (Administration), Appellate authority in the Supreme Court against the order of CPIO on application of appellant of 17/10/’05.

The appellant appeared before the Commission on 7/2/’06 together with Ms Madhu Moolchandani Counsel for Additional Registrar and CPIO of the Supreme Court of India (Vakalatnama on file)

The appellant averred that the response of the CPIO to his application for information on details of action taken on a petition filed by him before the Chief Justice of India together with information on the movement of the file was “meaningless and evasive”. The Appellate Authority held that these amounted to providing adequate information and dismissed the appeal. Hence the appeal to the Commission.

While the appellant argued before the Commission that the orders of the CPIO gave him no actionable information, Counsel for the CPIO stated that the information asked for fell within the jurisdiction of the High Court, a separate public authority not answerable to the Supreme Court. This was the information given.

The papers have been examined and both parties heard. The order of the CPIO reads as follows:

“I am directed to inform you that the aforesaid complaint has been kept on record in the relevant High court file.”

This is not a speaking order and provides little information on the disposal of the application although it meets in narrow terms the requirement of Sec 6(3) dealing with information held by ‘another public authority’ that in the present case is the High Court. The order does not mention when and under what reference the application was transferred to the High Court making it impossible for the appellant to find ways to seek further information.

It is therefore decided that the CPIO of the Supreme Court will now inform the applicant of the Reference and Date of the orders transferring the application to the High Court to enable the applicant to make a suitable application to that public authority to access the information sought.

It is also observed that under the Proviso to section 6 (3) transfer of an application pursuant to this Sub-section is to be made in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application. In the present case the letter informing the applicant of the transfer was made on November 22, in excess even of the thirty days mandated under Sec 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the disposal of the application. Since this is a case of October 2005, when the Act had only just come into force, and no claim for damages has been made, no penalty is imposed making allowance for the formative structure of the machinery for entertainment of applications under this Act. However, this may be taken note of in deciding cases in the future.

-sd-

(Padma Balasubramaniam)

Information Commissioner

-sd-

                                                                            (Wajahat Habibullah)

Chief Information Commissioner

Date: February 7, 2006

Authenticated

(PK Gera)

Joint Secretary & Registrar

Copy to:

1.Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, 1775 Kucha Lattushah, Dariba, Delhi 110006

2.Shri Hemant Sampat, Appellate Authority, Registrar (Administration), Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi 110001

3. Shri Ashok Kumar, Public Information Officer, Addl. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi 110001

4. Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Advocate, 66, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi 110001