- (1.) DECISION A.N.Tiwari, 1. This second appeal by the appellant, K.G. Bafana is against the order dated 11.10.2006 of the Appellate Authority (AA), Shri S.K. Biswas, Joint Registrar General, India.
(2.) The information requested by the appellant, through his RTI petition dated 26.7.2006 reads as follows: Part-II Particulars of the information sought. Copy of directives of Hon'ble Delhi High Court as proclaimed by Shri I.D. Swamy, then MoS (MHA), in the Rajya Sabha on 9th may, 2003 during the debate on Resolution of Rejection of Award of Board of Arbitration, CA reference No. 1/98 dated 18-10-1999 for revision of pay scale of Computers in the office of Registrar General India that "Hon'ble Delhi High Court has given direction that within three months, we (govt.) must finalise so far proceedings of Award concerned. It is direction from Delhi High Court that matter must be finalized one way or other, we (govt.) seeking permission of this House. (page No. 652 and 653 of Rajya Sabha proceeding on 9th may 2003. copy enclosed for ready reference). The CPIO's reply dated 17.8.2006, as upheld by the Appellate Authority (AA), stated the following: In connection with the information sought by you in your applications dated 26.07.2006 under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, regarding copy of the directive/speaking order of the Hon'ble High Court in the context of the proceedings of Rajya Sabha of 9th May, 2003, it may be stated that during the hearing of the Writ Petition No. 5610/2002 on 24.10.2002, the Hon'ble High Court had expressed concern over the delay in taking a final decision by Government on the Award and directed the Government Counsel to file an undertaking to the effect that the Government would take final decision on the Award within one month. On this, the Government Counsel had pleaded before the Court that at least three months' time be given for taking the final decision. Thereupon, the Hon'ble High Court had passed the following order: Adjourned on request of petitioner's counsel who wants to obtain instructions on the time frame within which award in question would be placed before the Two Houses of Parliament. List on 20th October, 2002. 2. In compliance with the order of Hon'ble High Court, an undertaking was filed before it on 26.10.2002 stating that the Government would take a final decision on the Award and move necessary Resolution in Parliament within a period of three(3) months.
(3.) THE appellant has characterized the reply of the C.P.I.O. as "misleading", "hallucination" and "inadmissible". THE sum-total of the appellant's submission to the Commission is that the information communicated to him regarding the directions of the High Court was "an inference arbitrarily drawn by the C.P.I.O./RGI in his communication dated 17.8.06 for the High Court proceedings 24.10.2002, self-styled undertakings dated 26.10.2002 and having no orders by the High Court with regard to so-called issuance of directives in the subsequent proceedings on 29.10.2002 and 24.3.2003..." he has demanded that the interpretation of the High Court's direction by C.P.I.O. should "be treated hallucination and misrepresentation of High Court proceedings...". In the appellant's understanding the High Court could not have given such arbitrary direction without first hearing both the parties to the case.;