CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

…..

F.No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00321
Dated, the 23rd November, 2006.

Appellant : Shri S. Haja Najeemudeen, Technical Officer, Room No.121,

C.M.F.R.I. (ICAR), Ernakulam North P.O., Cochin-682 018,
Kerala.

Respondents : Shri C.P. Thomas, Chief Adm. Officer & PIO, Indian
Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh.

Dr. Shiv Pal Sing Ahlawat, Director & Appellate Authority,

Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh.

This is an appeal by Shri S. Haja Najeemudeen against the order dated

27.2.2006 of the CPIO, Shri C.P. Thomas, Chief Adm. Officer, Indian Veterinary
Research Institute (IVRI), Izatnagar, U.P. He had apparently filed his first appeal
against the order of the CPIO before the Appellate Authority (AA), IVRI, Izatnagar,
U.P., but received no response. He thereafter filed this appeal before the Commission.

2. Parties were called for a hearing on 22.11.2006. The appellant was absent while
the respondents were represented by the CPIO, Shri C.P. Thomas, Chief Adm. Officer,
IVRI.

3. The respondents pointed out that the appellant submitted his request for
information dated NIL to the Director, IVRI and not to the CPIO. The appellant had
asked for the copies of the judgements of Supreme Court of India; CAT, Principal
Bench, Delhi and CAT, Allahabad Bench in the cases of Shri Pritam Singh,
Shri S.N. Misra and Shri Om Prakash Vs. Union of India and ICAR. This
RTI-application was rejected as it was not addressed to the CPIO. At the same time, an
advisory dated 27.2.2006 was issued to the applicant to approach the appropriate courts
to get the copies of judgements as per the court procedure.

4. The appellant once again submitted another application dated 17.3.2006

addressed to the CPIO requesting information on the number of court cases, its years
and dates of the respective judgements in the cases of S/Shri Pritam Singh, S.N. Mishra
and Om Prakash Vs. Union of India and ICAR. This time too his application was
rejected as it was not accompanied by the prescribed fee.

5. According to the respondents, the IVRI was not a party in the above cases which
was contested by the Union of India and the ICAR. However, after the court decisions
were pronounced, on directions of ICAR the IVRI had taken action to implement the
orders pertaining to the specific area relating to IVRI.
 2

6. The CPIO made a diligent search to locate the file in order to assess whether it
could be possible for IVRI to disclose the information requested by the appellant.
It was found that the File No.18(D)-16/76 E-II(Vol.II) was weeded out vide O.M.
No.Misc./2006 E-II dated 23.3.2006, and thus stood destroyed. The appellant was
suitably informed.

7. The appellant thereafter filed an appeal dated 8.6.2006 before the AA. In the
first appeal, the appellant countered the CPIO’s assertion that the files were weeded out
by quoting the Manual of Office Procedure Section 113 Clause 5(i), which pointed to
longer retention of court-judgement-related files.

8. The CPIO, in his written submission before the Commission has pointed out that
the above provision of the Manual did not apply to the present case because the IVRI’s
responsibility was limited to carrying out the orders of the ICAR, who were party in the
above court cases, and after doing necessary entries in the service books of the
employees who were parties in the court cases, the connected files were destroyed as
these were no longer required.

9. The employees of the IVRI, who were parties to the three court cases, S/Shri
Pritam Singh, S.N. Mishra and Om Prakash have entered their objection to the
disclosure of this information to the appellant in their capacity as third parties to this
case (RTI-proceedings).

10. The sum-total of the facts which emerged during the hearing of the case is that
the IVRI was not a party to the three court cases, in which judgements were passed
whose copies the appellant now seeks from the IVRI. Since these are court judgements,
it is for the appellant to approach the appropriate courts to obtain the copies of those
judgements. There is no reason why anyone else including the parties to those cases,
who might come to possess copies of those judgements, should be obliged under the
RTI Act to provide those copies as ‘information’ to the appellant. The request for
information has to be addressed to the public authority legitimately and authorizedly
holding that information, which in this case are the courts of law.

11. A court order is a decision of the court and, as such, it is the court as public
authority which should be construed as holding the information as its custodian. Others
including other public authorities, may come to possess the copies of these orders
through their own actions and effort, but cannot for that reason alone, be said to be the
public authority required to act under the RTI Act. Any applicant for a court order as
information under RTI Act, should therefore apply to the court where the order
originated. He cannot seek it from others or other public authorities even if that public
authority has come to possess a copy of that order under any specific condition.

12. That said, it should also be clarified that if a public authority initiates action on a
given orders of a Court or a Tribunal, or is required by such an order to initiate certain
actions, a citizen should be free to access such a court order even if it is with a public
authority other than the court.
 3

13. The IVRI might have come to possess the court judgements in certain
circumstances or even per chance. This does not qualify them as the public authority
holding the information. As such there is no obligation cast on them to supply this
information to the appellant under the RTI Act. The proper forum from where the
appellant should seek this information is the courts.

14. In view of the above, I do not wish to go into the other aspects of this case. The
appeal is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –

Sd/-
( NISHA SINGH )
Joint Secretary & Additional Registrar

Address of parties:

1. Shri S. Haja Najeemudeen, Technical Officer, Room No.121, C.M.F.R.I.

(ICAR), Ernakulam North P.O., Cochin-682 018, Kerala.

2. Shri C.P. Thomas, Chief Adm. Officer & PIO, Indian Veterinary Research
Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh.

3. Dr. Shiv Pal Sing Ahlawat, Director & Appellate Authority, Indian Veterinary
Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh.