THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 04.12.2014

+

W.P.(C) 6634/2011 & CM No.13398/2011

THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ..... Petitioner

versus

COMMODORE LOKESH K.BATRA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner

: Mr Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with

Ms Maneesha Dhir, Mr K. P. S. Kohli,

Mr Satyam Thareja and Ms Neha Singhj.

For the Respondents

: Mr Pranav Sachdeva for Mr Prashant Bhushan.

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1.

The petitioner impugns an order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the

Central Information Commission (hereafter the ‘CIC’) directing the Central

Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court (hereafter ‘CPIO’) to

provide information to respondent no.1 regarding pending cases which had

been heard and orders reserved. The CIC had further directed that if the

information sought was centrally not available, the necessary arrangement

be made in future for compiling such information and disclosing the same

in public domain.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that on 17.12.2009, respondent no.1 filed

an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the

‘Act’) with CPIO seeking the following information:-

2014:DHC:6701

“(a) Total number of cases pending for judgements where

'Arguments have been heard prior to 31 December 2007 and

Judgements are reserved'.

(b)

Total number of cases pending for judgments where

'Arguments have been heard between period 01 January 2008

and 31 December 2008 and Judgments are reserved'.

(c)

Total number of cases pending for judgements where

'Arguments have been heard between period 01 January 2009

and 15 December 2009 and Judgements are reserved'.”

3.

On 22.12.2009, respondent no.1 filed another application under the

Act seeking the following information:-

“Kindly provide me information under RTI Act 2005 ,In

respect of those cases where 'Arguments have been heard prior

to 22. December 2009 and Judgements are reserved' in the

Supreme Court. In this context following information is

requested in respect of each such case.

(a) Case Number.

(b) Case Type.

(c) Date the Case was first admitted.

(d) Date when Judgement was reserved.”

4.

By an order dated 12.01.2010, CPIO rejected the application dated

17.12.2009 and informed respondent no.1 that the data is not maintained by

the registry in the manner as sought for by him. The CPIO further advised

that for all the information with regard to the matters sub judice before the

Supreme Court, the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and the Supreme Court of

India, Practice & Procedure ‘A Handbook of Information’- which are also

available on the website of the Supreme Court of India- may be referred. A

similar order dated 22.01.2010 was passed by CPIO in response to the RTI

application dated 22.12.2009.

2014:DHC:6701

5.

Respondent no.1 filed separate appeals (Appeal No.74/2010 &

Appeal No.73/2010) before the First Appellate Authority (hereafter ‘FAA’)

challenging the orders dated 12.01.2010 and 22.01.2010 respectively. By a

common order dated 15.03.2010, FAA dismissed both the appeals.

Respondent no.1, thereafter, filed separate appeals before the CIC

challenging the order of FAA dated 15.03.2010. The CIC allowed the

appeals, by the impugned order.

6.

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended:-

6.1

That the information that can be disclosed or can be directed to be

disclosed under the Act is the information which exists and is held by the

public authorities in material form and no directions can be issued by the

authorities under the Act to the public authorities to create, hold and

maintain the information in any other manner. The Act does not cast any

obligation on any public authority to collate such non-available information

for the purpose of furnishing it to an RTI