1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.593 OF 2010 Jagdish V. Gursahani .....Petitioner versus Air India Ltd., & Ors. ..... Respondents ---- Petitioner in person. Mr.Girish Kulkarni along with Kavita Anchan along with Dipankas Das for respondent no.1. ---- CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 5th SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. By consent heard finally at the stage of admission. 1. The petitioner (in person) has moved this petition praying that the action be taken against the respondents for willful dis-obedience of the order dated 30.8.2010 passed by CIC, New Delhi (Central Information Commission). The respondents today, were supposed to file the reply. However, the respondents chose not to file the reply. Hence, by consent, matter proceeds. 2. The petitioner who was working as a Senior Aircraft Technician, was suspended by the respondents and charge-sheeted and inquiry proceedings were concluded on 16.11.1994. As a result of the 2 inquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from the service. The petitioner has moved an application under Right to Information Act 2005 to CPIO (Central Public Information Officer) regarding the details of provident fund and gratuity settlement chart on the suspended staff of the respondents from the period 1.1.1995 till 25.11.2009. In reply, respondents have furnished a chart giving names, designations and status of 417 staff who were dismissed or suspended from the service of the respondents. However, according to the petitioner, the respondents have failed to furnish requisite information in respect of the provident fund and gratuity amounts of these 417 staff. The petitioner moved to the CPIO but there was no response and therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint with CIC, New Delhi. CIC passed an order on 30.8.2010 by which CPIO was directed to provide requisite information to the complainant within 3 weeks as per the provisions of law and it further directed that on failure to do so, CPIO will be liable for penal action under Section 20(1) of Right to Information Act 2005. 3. The petitioner submits that the requisite information was not furnished to him till today. Hence, he has filed the contempt petition before this Court. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondents submits that this petition is 3 not maintainable in view of the impugned order passed by CIC. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed ex-parte and no opportunity was given to the respondents to put up its say. He submitted that the respondents have sent letter to Under-Secretary and Deputy Registrar of CIC on 7.10.2010 wherein the respondents claimed an exemption to disclose the information under Section 8G and 8J of the Act. He submitted that one more letter was sent by the respondents to the petitioner on 15.12.2009 where the respondents have informed that they were in process of obtaining the information sought by the petitioner from the concerned department and they would forward the same as soon as information is received. 5. The order passed by the CIC on 30.8.2010 is clear. The requisite information was to be furnished within 3 weeks and if not furnished, then CIC has ordered that CPIO would be liable for penal action under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act. Thus it is open for the petitioner to move to CIC by invoking section 20(1) of the Act. It appears from the order that the letter dated 7.10.2010, which is a subsequent letter, of the respondents which was sent to CIC seeking exemption under Section 8G & 8J of Right to Information Act, is not considered. However, in the letter dated 4 15.12.2009 the respondents had assured the petitioner that after collecting the information, they would furnish the requisite information. The petitioner has other forum to move for the remedy as mentioned in the impugned order. Hence, petition is dismissed. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. )