GOA
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
Ground
Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.
CORAM:
Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Complaint
143/SIC/2012
Decided
on 06.02.2014
Caetano
Paul Antao
C.P.No.
514, Central Jail, ----- Complainant
Aguada
V/S
Nutan
D. Sardessai,
Court
of Session Judge Principal ---- Opponent
Legal
Service, South Goa.
O
R D E R ( Open Court)
1)
The
Complainant herein is a criminal prisoner no. 514 from the prison of
Central
Jail, Aguada Bardez. He submits his letters by putting them in the
complaint
box of the jail from where the District Judge –I & Addl.
Sessions Judge,
Mapusa
sends it to relevant office.
2)
This Complaint application arises out of original RTI application
dated.
05/06/2012,
filed by him. It was received by the Registrar of SCIC but it
pertained
to
certain grievance and complaint against Additional session Judge
South Goa at
Margao.
Hence the Registrar of SCIC transferred it on 26/06/2012 under
section 6
(3)
of the RTI Act to the Additional Session Judge South Goa Margao with
copy to
the
Complainant.
3)
The Complainant wrote yet another applications on 06/08/2012 to the
Court
of
Session Judge South Goa, which was received by District Judge- 1 &
Addl.
Sessions
Judge, Mapusa and he forwarded it to the Principal District and
Session
Judge
South Goa on 13/08/2012.
4)
In reply to both, the Registrar and PIO of District and Session Court
South
Goa
wrote to the Jailer of Central Jail Aguada on 23/08/2012 ( dispatched
on
4/09/2012)
stating that “It
is not clear from the application dated 06.08.2012 of the
prisoner
Caetano Paul Antao, what information is required by him under the
Right
to
Information Act. The prisoner may also be informed that copy of the
documents
and
Judgment in Judicial proceedings cannot be issued under Right to
Information
2/-
-2-
Act
and that he may apply for certified copies of the said documents and
Judgment
in
Judicial Proceedings to the concerned Court if he so desire”.
5)
Thereafter the Complainant wrote an application dated 05/09/2012 to
the
State
Information Commissioner mentioning his earlier application dated
05/06/2012.
It also bears a covering letter dated 05/09/2012. Both were forwarded
by
Superintendent of the office of the District and Session court North
Goa Panaji
to
the office of the GSIC and received on 27/09/2012. Accordingly the
present
Complaint
case No. 143/SIC/2012 between Caetano Paul Antao, C.P. No. 514,
Central
Jail Aguada V/s Smt. Nutan Sardessai, Court of Session Judge
Principal
Legal
Service, South Goa was registered and a notice was issued on
14/11/2012
fixing
the hearing on 11/01/2013. The Complainant filed a repeat application
on
19/02/2013
before the GSIC.
6)
On perusal I find that both the applications dated 05/06/2012 and
06/08/2012
addressed
to District and Session Judge South Goa are apparently written in
English
but in an un-understandable language. The Complainant who is a
Prisoner
at
a Central Jail Aguada seems to have grievance against the judges of
District and
Sessions
Courts of South Goa for having ordered action against him. His
Complaints
vaguely talk of the arrest of the applicant in January 1990 and some
proceeding
under section 302 of IPC.
7)
In view of this the PIO of the District and Session Court South Goa
had
replied
on 23/08/2012 to the Jailer that the RTI application was unclear. He
further
stated
that copies of Judgements in Judicial proceedings cannot be issued
under
RTI
Act, but the applicant will have to follow a separate procedure to
get a
certified
copies. This letter was dispatched on 04/09/2012 so as to reach the
complainant
through the Jailer.
8)
Thereafter the applicant has filed the present complaint to this
office who
subject
reads as below:
“Request
to direct District and Session’s Judge, Smt. Nutan Sardessai to
furnish
information”.
It
was received in this office on 27/09/2012 and it was taken by this
office as
a
complaint under section 18(f) of the RTI Act and notice was issued to
the
3/-
-3-
Respondent.
It is pertinent to note that the posts of SCIC and SIC were both
vacant
and the hearing was taken up before the present SCIC for the first
time on
25/11/2013.
The Registrar of the District Court of South Goa who is also the PIO
was
present.
The
following Rojnama was noted:
Complainant
absent
Registrar
of the District Court of South Goa Present on behalf of Opponent.
From
the record it appears that one application was received by the PIO of
this
Office from applicant Caetano Paul Antao C.P. No.514 seeking
information
under
section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005. As the matter was pertaining to
Additional
Session
Judge, South Goa, the same was transferred vide letter No. GSIC/F-
94/2012/RTI/629
dated 26.06.2012 under section 6(3) to the Additional Session
Judge,
South Goa under intimation to the Applicant.
Thereafter,
Complainant’s application was received on 05/09/2012 making
out
a case against the Opponent for further action and to furnish the
information.
Notice
was issued to the Opponent on 27/09/2012 fixing the hearing on
10/01/2013.After
a few adjournment the case came up for hearing today, when the
Registrar
of District & Sessions Court was present on behalf of the
Opponent. A
written
statement of the Opponent is already filed on 10/01/2013 explaining
following
2 important points:-
a)
Any
application filed under RTI for purpose of seeking any information
from
court is governed by rules framed under section 28 of the Right to
Information
Act, 2005. The competent authority as defined by section
2(3)
for this purpose is High Court, who have formed their rules. The
application
was not in conformity with the rules laid down by the High
Court
of Bombay. Rule 14 is applicable for Goa, Daman & Diu and
Dadra
and Nagar Haveli as published by the High Court of Notification
No.
P. 0703.2009 dated 30.11.2009 which has been published in the Goa
Government
Official Gazette, Series II No. 40. In light of that, present
matter
needs to be seen.
4/-
-4-
b)
The
original application dated 05/06/2012 falls far below any
comprehension
hence he has informed the Jailor of the Central Jail
Aguada
to ask the original Complainant to clarify what exact question he
wanted
to ask and also to make available some legal aid so as to help
him
to formulate his question. Registrar would be filing his letter to
the
Jailor
on next date of hearing on which date the personal presence of the
Respondent
is not necessary. The presence of the Registrar who is also
the
PIO under High Court Notification will be sufficient.
I
also find an unsigned paper in the documents of this case dated
14/01/2013
whose language suggest that it is a request from the
Complainant
to Goa State Information Commission to instruct the Jail
Authority
to make arrangement to produce him before the State Information
Commission.
The language of this application has far more clarity and
follows
the rule of Grammar of English language when compared with the
language
in Complainant application received on 06/08/2012 or on
05/09/2012.
In the first application the Complainant speaks of death penalty
and
it is not clear as to what exact information he is wanting and
regarding
whose
death penalty. Thus there arises a doubt whether the application
requesting
to be brought before SCIC is written by same person. In any case
I
find no need of his presence before me at this stage till the points
mentioned
at 1& 2 above are considered.
A
copy of Roznama should be delivered to the Complainant through
Jailor”.
9)
However, the PIO of District and Session Court South Goa was directed
to
make
one more attempt. Accordingly through his letter No.DSC/MAR/RIA-
436/2013/10827
dated 28/11/2013, he informed the prisoner/complainant that “he
should
make an application mentioning therein the specific information
required
by
the complainant under the RTI Act from the concerned PIO. If the
complainant
finds
any difficulty in making the application, the said
prisoner/complainant may
take
the assistance of the Legal Aid Council for the said purpose. The
prisoner/complainant
may also be informed that the copies of the documents and
judgments
in Judicial proceedings cannot be issued under RTI Act and that he
may
apply
for the said copy of the said documents/judgments in Judicial
proceedings to
the
concerned court, if he so desires”.
5/-
-5-
10)
The
matter finally came on 06/02/2014 when it was noted that the PIO
Registrar
has given an intimation to the Jailor as directed in the last
Roznama.
Nothing
has been heard further from the applicant.
11)
In view of the absolute non-clarity of the application received from
the
complainant
there is no merit in the present complaint. The same is therefore
dismissed.
Order declared in open court. Inform the parties.
Sd/-
(
Leena Mehendale)
Goa
State Chief Information Commissioner
Panaji
– Goa.
