IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15464 of 2009(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MANNATIL KUMAR, 89, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOCHI- 682 020. BY MANNATIL KUMAR (PARTY IN PERSON). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 2ND FLOOR, 'B' WING, AUGUST KRANTI BHAVAN, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066. 2. SMT. V.KALA, COMPANY SECRETARY AND CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD., KOCHI-682 015. 3. SHRI. K.K.SUKUMARAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HRD) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD., KOCHI-682 020. R2 BY MR. M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. MR.SAJI VARGHESE, SMT.MARIAM MATHAI, MR.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON 21/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15464 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent from 1973 to 1995. He retired from the company on superannuation in January, 1995. Apparently, he had aspired for selection to the post of Chief Manager (Personnel), while in service. But he was not selected to the said post. It is on record that more than one writ petition was filed against the 1st respondent in relation to the alleged irregularities in the selection to the post of Chief Manager (Personnel). All the writ petitions were apparently dismissed. 2. The petitioner, by an application dated 4.4.2006. required the Central Public Information Officer of the 1st respondent for the following documents: i) A copy of the Performance Appraisal Reports (Half Yearly, Annual and others) W.P.(C).No.15464 of 2009 :: 2 :: rendered on me during the period of my service in the Company. ii) A copy each of the Report of the Selection Committee (July 1990). WHICH FOUND WE ME UNFIT for the post of Chief Personnel Manager and Head of the Personnel Department. 3. The following reply dated 5.5.2006 was given by the Company Secretary: “Please refer your request dated 04 April, 2006, seeking documents under the Right for Information Act, 2005. Instruction on the procedure for Rendition of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports stipulates that the Performance Appraisal Reports on retired employees can be destroyed after a period of five years from the date of retirement. Hence we are not in a position to consider your request for Annual Performance Appraisal doziers, since the same has been destroyed. 4. A copy of the Selection Committee Report nominated for the selection of Chief Manager (Personnel) in the year 1990 is enclosed.” W.P.(C).No.15464 of 2009 :: 3 :: 5. The petitioner then filed an appeal against the said communication dated 5.5.2006 before the appellate authority under the RTI Act. By a detailed order dated 29.2.2008, the appellate authority considered each one of the points raised by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that all available information/documents have already been supplied to the petitioner. The other documents sought for by the petitioner are no longer available with them as they are several years old. Reference was made to the fact that 19 applications were filed by the petitioner at several points of time seeking information regarding selections dated back to the year 1976. All the available information had been supplied. What have been destroyed and are, therefore not available cannot be supplied. 6. The petitioner then preferred a further appeal before the Central Information Commission. By Ext.P1 order the Central Information Commission W.P.(C).No.15464 of 2009 :: 4 :: took note of the position reiterated by the respondents. The petitioner was trying to agitate a grievance relating to a service matter, which was several years old. The petitioner himself had retired from service in the year 1995. Series of petitions filed by him before the High Court were dismissed. The Central Information Commissioner accepted the case of the respondents that they cannot be compelled to disclose information which is not traceable. The above orders passed by the Central Information Commissioner, and the Public Information Officer of the 1st respondent, and the appellate authority have been challenged in this writ petition. 7. The party appeared in person. I heard the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and Sri.Saji Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the Cochin Shipyard. I have gone through the writ petition as also the counter affidavit. W.P.(C).No.15464 of 2009 :: 5 :: 8. The counter affidavit makes reference to several litigations instituted by the petitioner earlier. The information sought for presently is also one relating to the selection conducted even prior to 1995. The petitioner himself had retired from service in the year 1995. Whatever information is available was supplied to the petitioner. The records relating to the selection conducted even years prior to the petitioner's retirement cannot be expected to be retained by the 1st respondent. What are not traceable cannot be compelled to be disclosed. I do not find any error in the stand taken by the respondents in this regard. 9. The petitioner seems to be making an attempt to relive old battles which were fought several years ago, when he was in the service of the 1st respondent. The petitioner should let bygones be bygones. At any rate, I do not find any grounds to W.P.(C).No.15464 of 2009 :: 6 :: interfere with the orders impugned or issue any direction as sought for by the petitioner. The writ petition is bereft of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge