Thursday, January 24, 2013

[HumJanenge] SC Judgment : Karnataka Info Commissioner v/s PIO

Please read the judgment below:

My Query:

Who will pay the Rs 100,000 ?

The Karnataka State Information Commission
OR
The Karnataka Chief Information Commissioner
(He was Petitioner in the HC)
OR 
The Karnataka Information Commissioner
(The petitioner in the SC)

RTIwanted

====================

ITEM NO.30               COURT NO.4             SECTION IVA              S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS  Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013                                                 CC 1853/2013  (From the judgement and order  dated 15/06/2012 in WA No.3255/2010,  of  The HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)  KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSIONER                Petitioner(s)                   VERSUS  STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & ANR            Respondent(s)  (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report ))  Date: 18/01/2013  This Petition was called on for hearing today.  CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE   For Petitioner(s)        Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.   For Respondent(s)             UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R                     Delay condoned.                    This petition filed by Karnataka  Information  Commissioner       for setting aside order dated 15.6.2012 passed by the  Division  Bench       of the Karnataka High  Court  in  Writ  Appeal  No.3255/2010  (GM-RES)       titled Karnataka Information Commission v.  State  Public  Information       Officer and another cannot but be described as a  frivolous  piece  of       litigation which deserves  to  be  dismissed  at  the  threshold  with       exemplary costs.                  Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 6(1)  of       the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act')  and  sought       certain documents and information from the Public Information  Officer       - Deputy Registrar (Establishment) of  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka       (respondent No.1). His prayer was for supply of  certified  copies  of       some information/documents regarding guidelines and  rules  pertaining       to scrutiny and classification of writ  petitions  and  the  procedure       followed by the Karnataka High  Court  in  respect  of  Writ  Petition       Nos.26657 of 2004 and 17935 of 2006.                  Respondent No.1 disposed of the application  of  respondent       No.2 vide order dated 3.8.2007 and intimated him that the  information       sought by him is available in the Karnataka High  Court  Act  and  the       Rules and he can obtain the certified copies of the  order  sheets  of       the two writ petitions by filing  appropriate  application  under  the       High Court Rules.                  Respondent  No.2  filed  complaint  dated  17.1.2008  under       Section 18 of the Act before the Karnataka Information Commission (for       short, 'the Commission')and made a grievance that the certified copies       of the documents had not been made available to him despite payment of       the  requisite  fees.   The  Commission  allowed  the   complaint   of       respondent No.2 and directed respondent No.1 to furnish the High Court       Act, Rules and certified copies of order sheets free of cost.                  Respondent No.1 challenged  the  aforesaid  order  in  Writ       Petition No.9418/2008.  The learned Single Judge allowed the same  and       quashed  the  order  of  the  Commission  by  making   the   following       observations:                  "The information as sought for by the respondent in respect                  of Item Nos. 1, 3 and 4 mentioned above  are  available  in                  Karnataka High Court Act and  Rules  made  thereunder.  The                  said  Act  and  Rules  are  available  in  market.  If  not                  available, the respondent has to obtain copies of the  same                  from the publishers.  It is not open for the respondent  to                  ask for  copies  of  the  same  from  the  petitioner.  But                  strangely,  the  Karnataka   Information   Commission   has                  directed the  petitioner  to  furnish  the  copies  of  the                  Karnataka High Court Act & Rules free of cost  under  Right                  to Information Act. The impugned order in  respect  of  the                  same is illegal and arbitrary.                    The information in respect of Item Nos.6 to 17 is  relating                  to  Writ  Petition  No.26657/2004  and  Writ  Petition  No.                  17935/2006.  The  respondent  is  a  party  to   the   said                  proceedings. Thus, according  to  the  Rules  of  the  High                  Court, it is open for the respondent to file an application                  for certified copies of the order  sheet  or  the  relevant                  documents for  obtaining  the  same.   (See  Chapter-17  of                  Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959). As it is  open  for  the                  respondent to obtain certified copies of  the  order  sheet                  pending as well as the disposed of matters, the State Chief                  Information Commissioner is not justified in directing  the                  petitioner to furnish copies of the same free of costs.  If                  the order of the State Chief Information Commissioner is to                  be implemented, then, it  will  lead  to  illegal  demands.                  Under the Rules, any person who is party or not a party  to                  the proceedings can obtain the orders of the High Court  as                  per the procedure prescribed in the Rules mentioned  supra.                  The State Chief Information  Commissioner  has  passed  the                  order without applying his mind to the  relevant  Rules  of                  the High Court. The State  Chief  Information  Commissioner                  should  have  adverted  to  the  High  Court  Rules  before                  proceeding further. Since the impugned order is illegal and                  arbitrary, the same is liable to be  quashed.  Accordingly,                  the following order is made."                    Respondent No.2 did not challenge the order of the  learned       Single Judge. Instead, the Commission filed an appeal  along  with  an       application for condonation of 335 days' delay.   The  Division  Bench       dismissed the application for condonation of delay and also held  that       the Commission cannot be treated as an aggrieved person.                  We have heard Shri V. N. Raghupathy,  learned  counsel  for       the petitioner.                  What has surprised us is that while  the  writ  appeal  was       filed by the Commission, the special leave petition has been preferred       by the Karnataka Information Commissioner.  Learned counsel could  not       explain as to how the petitioner herein,  who  was  not  an  appellant       before the Division Bench of the High Court can challenge the impugned       order.  He also could not explain as to what  was  the  locus  of  the       Commission to file appeal against the  order  of  the  learned  Single       Judge whereby its order had been set aside.                  The entire exercise undertaken by the  Commission  and  the       Karnataka Information Commissioner to  challenge  the  orders  of  the       learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the  High  Court  shows       that the concerned officers have wasted public  money  for  satisfying       their ego. If respondent No.2 felt  aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the       learned Single Judge, nothing prevented him from challenging the  same       by filing writ appeal.  However, the fact of the matter is that he did       not question the order of the learned Single Judge. The Commission and       the Karnataka Information Commissioner  had  no  legitimate  cause  to       challenge the order  passed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  and  the       Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, the writ appeal filed  by       the commission  was  totally  unwarranted  and  misconceived  and  the       Division Bench  of  the  High  Court  did  not  commit  any  error  by       dismissing the same.                  With the above observations, the special leave petition  is       dismissed. For filing a frivolous petition, the petitioner is  saddled       with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The amount of cost shall be deposited  by       the petitioner with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee  within       a period of 2 months from today.  If the  needful  is  not  done,  the       Secretary of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall  recover       the amount of cost from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.           |(Parveen Kr.Chawla)                    | |(Phoolan Wati Arora)                  | |Court Master                           | |Court Master                          | |                                       | |                                      |    ----------------------- 5 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.