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. 15605 of 2009(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MANNATIL KUMAR, 89, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOCHI- 682 020. BY MR. MANNATIL KUMAR (PARTY-IN-PERSON). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISIONER, 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 LIMITED, KOCHI-682 015. 3. SHRI.K.K.SUKUMARAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HRD) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED, 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.15605 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 10.5.2006. required the Central Public Information Officer of the 1st respondent for the following documents: W.P.(C).No.15605 of 2009 :: 2 :: i) A copy of the comparative statement incorporating the particulars of the candidates prepared for use of the Committee. ii) A copy each of the Mark Sheets rendered separately by each of the Committee Members awarding marks to the candidates against the seven factors referred to above. iii) A copy of the application of Sri.K.Ramachandran Pillai. iv) A copy of the application submitted by me. v) A gist of the circumstances/reasons advanced by the Management before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for cancellation of the selection/appointment of Sri.Ramachandran Pillai. 3. By a reply dated 7.6.2006, the Company Secretary and the Public Information Officer of the 1st respondent, intimated the petitioner, the relevant extract of Clause 6, instructions on the procedure for rendition of actual performance appraisal reports was enclosed therewith. With regard to the other documents sought by the petitioner on selection procedure, comparative statement mark sheets, W.P.(C).No.15605 of 2009 :: 3 :: individual application of candidates and other papers connected with the case before the High Court, it was informed that the same are not available with the 1st respondent as the case was more 10 years old. 4. The petitioner then filed an appeal against the said communication dated 7.6.2006 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 W.P.(C).No.15605 of 2009 :: 4 :: supplied. What have been destroyed and are, therefore not available cannot be supplied. 5. The petitioner then preferred a further appeal before the Central Information Commission. By Ext.P1 order the Central Information Commission 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. W.P.(C).No.15605 of 2009 :: 5 :: 6. 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. 7. 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. W.P.(C).No.15605 of 2009 :: 6 :: 8. 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 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