Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6085/2010 1/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6085 of 2010
=========================================================
SANJAY
KUMAR BHAGVANSINH THAKOR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER,
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
UTPALA S BORA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NV ANJARIA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR AL
SHARMA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 06/08/2010
ORDER
Heard
learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.
The
present petition is preferred by petitioner to direct respondents to
provide information to petitioner, for which, he asked for in his
application dated 4th February 2008 and also made prayer
to declare that action of respondent No.1 of not imposing penalty on
the officer who did not supply the information even after the order
was passed by appellate authority which is against the provisions of
Right to Information Act, 2005.
In
this petition, affidavit in reply is filed by respondent No.2, Page
59, where, Para 3 and 4, Page 60 are quoted as under :
3. I
submit that the application filed by the applicant is totally
misconceived, contrary to fact. It suffers from suppressio vari
suggestio falsi. The petitioner has concealed the material fact that
when on 28.04.2010, he visited the office of deponent, he was
supplied the information available in respect of four teachers out of
the information sought as regards five teachers. However the
petitioner refused to take the copies of the documents containing
information relating to four teachers and insisted that he should
also be given documents relating to the fifth teacher namely Shri
Rambhai F. Pagi, despite the fact that the petitioner was informed
that documents relating to Shri Rambhai F. Pagi were not available on
record and therefore, the deponent was not able to provide the same
to him. Since the petitioner refused to take the documents provided
to him a Rojkam was prepared by the staff present on the same day
i.e. 28.04.2010. Copy of letter dated 28.04.2010 along with Rojkam
prepared on 28.04.2010 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-1.
4. Further,
if the order dated 22.02.2010, passed by the Chief Information
Commissioner, is perused, it is clear that the deponent as
Information Officer, was required to furnish information on point
No.5 and 6 available on record. Accordingly, documents available on
record were sought to be made available to the petitioner as and when
the same were available, however, he refused to take the copies of
the documents and insisted for supply of the documents which were not
available in the office and therefore, could not have been supplied
to him, the fact of which he was also well aware. So far as
certifying the documents is concerned, the same could have been done
at the relevant time itself had the petitioner cooperated in the
matter and even today, if the same are submitted for being certified
the deponent assures that the same shall be duly certified and handed
over to the petitioner on the very same day. In view of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the petitioner and the petition being in
abuse of process of court, suffering from suppression of material
facts, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition with
exemplary costs.
Learned
advocate Ms. Bora submitted that Page 54 in Para 2, three items are
mentioned, therefore, Para 2, Page 54 are quoted as under :
2. In
his memo of appeal, the appellant stated that he could not remain
present in the hearing as he received the intimation for hearing
after the date if hearing was over, as the intimation was sent in the
address of the School where he was working and there was vacation in
the second at the relevant time. The appellant, inter alia, stated
that he received incomplete information and that he did not received
the following information :
(i) Certified
copies of the notices sent to the parties for appearing in the
hearing on 1.9.2007 before the Zilla Sikshan Tribunal, the outward
number of letters/notices and the copies with dates of
correspondences made;
(ii)
Certified copies of the statements of the concerned parties in the
above mentioned hearing, and the copies of the decision made by the
said Tribunal including information on what evidence the decision was
made.
(iii) Certified
copies of the information relating to the application made by one of
the teachers, Shri Ramabhai F. Pagi, his statement before the
Tribunal and the documents submitted by him.
Relying
upon aforesaid required information as per Item II, certified copy of
the statement of the concerned party in the above mentioned hearing
and the copies of the decision of the Tribunal including the
information on what evidence the decision was made. For that, there
is no reply given by respondent No.2.
In
respect to these facts, let petitioner may approach Respondent No.2
to have the certified copy as demanded in Item II as referred above.
In respect to Item I, affidavit of respondent No.2 is considered
wherein it is made clear that they will certified the documents which
demanded and required by petitioner. As and when petitioner will
approach the respondent No.2, same will supply to petitioner by
respondent No.2.
Now,
in respect to Item III, these documents are not made available with
respondent No.2, therefore, information cannot be made available to
petitioner.
In
light of this observation made by this Court in light of affidavit in
reply as well as considering the petition with all annexures, present
petition is disposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion
on merits.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.]
#Dave
Top