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.
**
