Thursday, October 15, 2020

 RTI FLASH-12

At times the courts surprise us by their outreach of decisions going beyond the letters of law. In a case in Punjab and Haryana High court, the court went out a mile to extend the benefit of RTI Act (enacted in 2005) to a Civil revision petitioner  who filed the original case in 2001.


 C.R. No. 1051 of 2001. (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.R. No. 1051 of 2001. Date of Decision: 29.1.2006.

Punjab Public Service Commission ...Petitioner.

Versus

Rajiv Kumar Goyal. ...Respondent.

 

Background

The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is duly qualified and selected for the post of Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) in the examination and interview for the post conducted by respondent no.3, the result for which was declared on 7.11.1994. The plaintiff has also sought consequential relief of appointment as member of PCS (Executive) along with seniority with effect from 7.11.1994 or with effect from such other date when other selected candidates were appointed. Before filing the replication, the plaintiff filed the application for production of record on the ground that the written statement is evasive.

In reply to the said application, it was the stand of the Commission that the issues raised by the plaintiff relate to internal working of the Commission and that the internal procedure cannot be divulged publicly in the public interest. It is also pleaded that the maintainability of the Civil Suit is yet to be determined by the Court in as much as the Civil Suit is time barred and the Courts at Patiala have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Civil Suit. It has been further pleaded that the Public Service Commission is Constitutional Body as defined under Article 315 of the Constitution of India and the Constitutional obligation can only be determined by a Constitutional Bench. It was also submitted that complete record pertaining to the examination of the candidates has already been submitted before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 17490 of 1994 and that the Commission is not in possession of the record pertaining to selection of PCS (Executive) and other like services of the year 1994.

While admitting the present revision petition, this Court on 23.1.2004, passed an order permitting the plaintiff to move an application for inspection of the record. It was ordered that if an application is moved, the plaintiff shall be allowed to inspect the record in the meantime.

Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application for recall of the said order. The said application was dismissed on 31.1.2005.

Both the orders i.e. the order dated 23.1.2004 and that of 31.1.2005 are subject matter of challenge by the Public Service Commission in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 8394 and 8396 of 2005, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued notice in the Special Leave Petition and passed an order that the operation of the orders of the High Court permitting inspection shall remain stayed.

The Court held:

“Earlier the present revision petition came up before me on 30.9.2005, when on an argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the hearing of the revision petition was deferred till the decision of the SLP. But the matter was listed before this Court on 4.1.2006 when it was pointed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that SLP is only against an interim order passed by this Court, therefore, hearing of the revision petition need not be deferred. On the said date, it was ordered that it is not a fit case to stay the proceedings sine die. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, sought time to argue the matter on merits and to examine the effect of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act').

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and I am of the opinion that de-hors of the provisions of Order 11 Rule 14 of the CPC, all citizens have been given right to information in terms of Section 3 of the Act.

The information is defined under Section 2(f) of the Act to mean any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.

Section 4 of the Act contemplates the obligation of public authorities to maintain all its record duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under the Act.

Section 6 of the Act provides that a person, who desires to obtain any information under the Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed. Any applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him in terms of Sub Section 2 of Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of the Act, every citizen of the country has a right to seek information as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act from a public authority. Therefore, without going into the merits of the controversy raised in the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to seek information in terms of the Act.

The application has been moved by the plaintiff before the Civil Court, but it cannot said that since the application has not been filed before the Information Officer, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the information.

-       Hemant Gupta ds Judge.

 

**

 

No comments:

Post a Comment