CIC/SA/A/2015/000454. Case: Bhan Singh Vs PIO, Tis Hazari Court. Central Information Commission

Case Number:CIC/SA/A/2015/000454
Party Name:Bhan Singh Vs PIO, Tis Hazari Court
Judges:Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner
Issue:Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(h), 8(1)(J)
Judgement Date:August 25, 2015
Court:Central Information Commission
 
FREE EXCERPT

Court Information Central Information Commission Cases
Judgment Date 25-Aug-2015
Party Details Bhan Singh Vs PIO, Tis Hazari Court
Case No CIC/SA/A/2015/000454
Judges Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner
Acts Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(h), 8(1)(J)

Decision:

Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner

Parties Present:

1. Appellant is present. None represents Public authority.

FACTS:

2. Appellant through his RTI application sought to know norms & criteria adopted in transferring the suit No. CS-721/2007 from court of Ms. Richa Manchanda, Civil Judge, to court of Sh. Jitendra Pratap Singh; under what circumstances it was transferred; rationale behind it; how many cases transferred on that day when this case was transferred etc. CPIO replied that information is exempted under section 7(6) of Delhi District Court (Right to information) Rules 2008 and 8(1)(h)&(j) of RTI. Appellant filed first appeal. First appellate authority upheld CPIO reply. Claiming wrongful denial of information, appellant approached the Commission.

Proceedings Before the Commission:

3. The appellant stated that transfer of case was administrative decision. The file of his case was transferred within Tis Hazari court secretly. Mr. Bhan Singh, who is plaintiff in suit No. CS-2007 alleged that the case while being heard by Ms. Richa Manchanda, Civil Judge of Tis Hazari Court in Delhi, it was abruptly transferred to the court of Shri Jitendra Pratap Singh, Civil Judge within the same premises by giving new No. CS-384/2014. The appellant says that there was no application requesting for such transfer from any side. The suit was at the stage of trial for considering the evidence, he submitted written evidence, and cross examination was pending. At that stage, case was transferred to different court where the issues were freshly framed.

4. The appellant says the transfer of case from one court to other was not in judicial process, it was only a decision regarding moving of the file from one court to another, which was not openly done. He alleged that it was secretly managed. He says the case in the transferred court started with framing of issue and abruptly ended with dismissal without even taking evidence. The appellant has challenged the decision of Mr. Jitendra Pratap Singh in the court of law.

5. The CPIO Usha Arora in her reply dated 03.12.2014 stated that the information sought related to judicial...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL