CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION - CIC

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONRight to Information Act 2005 – Section 19Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00302 Dated: 24.7.2006Appellant: Shri S.K.SrivastavaRespondent: Dep’t. of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & JusticeFacts:Vide request of 31.3.06 applicant Shri S.K.Srivastava, Advocate, High Court ofDelhi applied to PIO Shri R.Raghupati, Dy. Secy. (Admn), Dep’t. of Legal Affairs,Ministry of Law & Justice seeking the following information:a) Is there any SLP, Review Petition or any Curative Petition pending beforethe Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the Union of India has challenged thelaw laid down by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3622 of 1995 and 1481of 1996?b) If yes, what are its details, i.e. Case No. and Cause Title etc. and is thereany interim stay order?c) If no, then how the implementation of the aforesaid Hon’ble Apex CourtRulings would go to impair other SLPs of the Union of India as conveyed tothe CBEC as informed earlier?d) In case of non-existence of any SLPs of the Union of India challenging thelaw laid down by the Apex Court, why has such a “biased” and “wrong”legal interpretation been passed on to the Central Board of Excise &Customs ?e) Does the Ministry of Law propose to refer the matter to the AttorneyGeneral of India or the Solicitor General of India in view of the conflictinginterpretations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rulings by two Ministriesunder the Govt. of India as the matter has got universal application ?On not receiving information sought within the time limit specified in sec. 7(1),applicant Shri Srivastava made his first appeal to Secretary, Ministry of Law &Justice, presumably assuming that he was appellate authority, against the deemedrefusal of CPIO in appellant Srivastava seeking information in terms of sec. 6 of RTI1

Act. The appeal was heard by Shri K.D. Singh, Addl. Secretary and AppellateAuthority, after notice of hearing dated 6.6.06, on 20.6.06. In disposing of this appealthe Appellate Authority found that the appeal had no merits and deserved to bedismissed. Hence this second appeal filed before this Commission on 24.7.06. Therelief sought is as follows:1. To direct the CPIO to supply the information sought from him.2. To allow the appellant to inspect the file of the Law Ministry containing thecorrespondence relating to the Legal Opinion extended to CBEC under Dep’t.of Revenue on the matter in question consequent upon the receipt of thequery from the CBEC in October, 2005.3. To Allow the appellant to take certified copies of the documents as well as filenotings from the relevant file without any cost.4. To hold that the AA in the given facts and circumstances was required to giveanother opportunity to the appellant before dismissing the appeal ex parte.5. To propose action against the AA, applying the ratio of the judgment in thematter of Dr. Anand Akhila Vs. CSIR in F. CIC/WB/C/2006/00040 dated24.4.066. To impose the penalty upon the CPIO as mandated u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.In support of his contention at (4) above appellant states that he had to be outof Delhi on the date of hearing and, therefore, the Appellate Authority wastelephonically requested to give another opportunity for hearing. Appellate AuthorityShri KD Singh, however, turned down the request on the plea that he had to decidethe appeal within 30 days, and also failed to record the telephonic request.The case was heard on 28.8.06. The followings are present:1. Shri S.K.Srivastava, Appellant along with Shri M.K.Kaushik, authorizedrepresentative2. Shri A.K.Cashyap, CPIO, DOPT,3. Shri Yashwant Singh, CAPIO, Dep’t. of Legal Affairs and4. Sh. A.K.Srivastava, Section Officer, MoLA.2

We have examined the file. The key issues are as follows:1. Whether action u/s 6(3) was justified. It is stated in the copy of theexplanation presented to the Appellate Authority by the CPIO vide his letterof 2.6.06 submitted to us at Annexure A-4 of the second appeal that thetransfer was made under intimation to the applicant Shri Srivastava.2. If the matter has been disposed of by the Dep’t. of Revenue, which is theadministrative Ministry of CBEC regarding which Public Authority theinformation has been sought, and to which application has also been madeby the appellant Shri S.K. Srivastava on 10.2.06, then whether an appealon the same subject can lie with this Commission against the decision ofthe Ministry of Law & Justice3. Whether the failure of the Appellate Authority to record the telephoniccommunication of the appellant regarding his failure to appear before theAppellate Authority Shri K.D. Singh on 20.6.2006 has in any way vitiatedthe decision in 1 st appeal and therefore substantive ground for consideringthe 2 nd appeal, and4. Whether action against the Appellate Authority is justified applying the ratioof judgment in the matter of Dr. Anand Akhila Vs. CSIR inCIC/WB/C/2006/00040 dated 24.4.06.We find the Appellant Authority has already given his request for hearing theappeal ex-parte. It is not understood how mentioning the telephonic request ofappellant to postpone the hearing would make any difference in the matter in which adecision had been taken on the basis of the law in considering the appeal. On issue4, our decision in Appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00040 dated 24.4.06, Dr. Anand Akhilavs. CSIR reads as follows:“ Although the Appellate Authority is not covered by the penalprovisions of this Act, Shri V.K.Gupta has clearly failed in this case touphold the law or act in the public interest. A copy of this decision maybe sent to DG, CSIR to consider disciplinary action under the CSIRrules.”3

Copy of that Decision has been placed on file. In the present case it has notbeen found that the Appellate Authority has in any way failed to uphold the law or actin the public interest, even if appellant Shri Srivastava may disagree with hisdecision. As will be clear from the portions highlighted by us in the quote below fromthe response to the Appeal Notice submitted by respondent public authority, theDecision of the Department of Legal affairs for action taken u/s 6(3) (i) of the RTI Act,2005, is in full conformity with the law.DECISION NOTICEAs stated by Shri M.K. Kaushik, Authorized Representative of Appellant ShriS.K. Srivastava, since there are other appeals before this Commission concerningother Ministries regarding the same subject, it is requested that the present appealmay be permitted to be withdrawn.In their response to the appeal notice the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministryof Law & Justice have, vide their letter of 14 th August, 2006, on the question of legalopinion issued to the CBEC, described among the brief facts leading to the secondappeal the following:1. “It is submitted that the basic function of Department of Legal Affairsis to render advice to various Ministries/Departments of theGovernment of India on legal matter, carries out Conveyanceing workof the Central Government and attends to the Litigation work of theCentral Government in Supreme Court, High Courts, SubordinateCourts and Central Administrative Tribunals. It is a usual practicethat advice is being tendered on the file of the concernedMinistry/Department. Thereafter, it is returned to them along withadvice tendered thereon. Therefore, only concerned Ministry/Department can provide the copy of advice so tendered. As suchthe Appellant’s request was transferred to the concerned CPIOs underSection 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence the Appellant’s contention ofnon-furnishing of advice is not sustainable.2. It is submitted that the administrative Ministry after examining thecase takes a decision to file an SLP. However, feasibility of filing anSLP is decided by the D/o Legal Affairs in consultation with one of the4

Law Officers. The concerned administrative Ministries are thecustodian of concerned Legal Opinion. Moreover, in the absence ofthe certified copy of the Legal Opinion in question it is extremely difficultfor this Department to take a view on the subject.The APIO of Ministry of Law Shri Yashwant Singh has, therefore, requestedthat the appeal be dismissed on merits.It is not for this Commission to go into the legal niceties of closing this case.However, since both parties are agreeable to not pursuing this matter further in thepresent appeal, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.(Wajahat Habibullah)Chief Information Commissioner28.8.2006Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied againstapplication and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of thisCommission.(L.C.Singhi)Addl. Registrar28.8.20065