Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4430/2011 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4430 of 2011
=========================================================
NAFIS
AHMED M ISHFAQUE CHHIPA THE AHMEDABAD GUJRI ASSOCIATIO -
Petitioner(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER
- STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
UTPALA S BORA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 11/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned
relief(s):-
“8.(A)
This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B)
This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a
writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.1
to hear the complaint dated 18.1.2011 within a short period.
(C) During
the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to direct the concerned authority to inquire
into the matter and to initiate disciplinary action against the
erring officer(s), directing the respondents to provide information
to the petitioner which he asked in his application dated 14.7.2010.”
2. Heard
Ms.Bora, learned advocate for the petitioner.
3. It
appears that the petitioner herein had made application before the
respondent no.3 seeking certain information which would fall within
the meaning of the term information
as defined and contemplated under Clause-2(f) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
4. It
further appears that such request was not considered and/or granted
by the respondent no.3. Ultimately, the petitioner was constrained to
approach the respondent no.1 and also the respondent no.2.
5. It
comes out from the record that on 22nd December, 2010, the
respondent no.1 passed certain order and directed the respondent no.2
i.e. present respondent no.3 to furnish, on
payment of fee, the information mentioned at Point Nos.1 to 5 in the
said order.
5.1 The
said order was passed under the provisions of Sections 18(1) and
18(2) of the Right to Information Act.
5.2 The
petitioner has approached the Court with the grievance that despite
the said order, the information has not been supplied to the
petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, says that this Court should
act as executing Authority/Court and implement and execute the order
passed by an authority created under an Act i.e. the respondent nos.1
and 2 for not complying with the directions issued by virtue of the
order dated 22.12.2010. It appears that the petitioner has, on this
count, made complaint dated 18.01.2011 and the same did not yield any
result. Therefore, present petition.
6. Ms.Bora,
learned advocate for the petitioner, has heavily relied upon
the provisions of Section 18 of the Right to Information Act and
submitted that it is the
duty of the respondents to supply the information as directed by the
respondent no.1. To that extent the submission by Ms.Bora, learned
advocate for the petitioner, is justified.
7. However,
the petitioner is not justified in contending that the High Court
should take action for execution of the order passed by the authority
under the Act.
8. This
Court is of the view that the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India ought not to be exercised for execution of the
order passed by an Authority constituted under any Statute. The
Statute of the prerogative writ of mandamus command by this Court in
exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India would not be issued for execution of subordinate authority’s
orders against some other party. The judgment holder is supposed to
and required to take out appropriate proceedings before appropriate
forum – Court for execution and enforcement of subordinate
authority’s orders.
9. The
petitioner ought to take appropriate action under the provisions of
the Right to Information Act,2005 or any other appropriate
provisions, as may be relevant and applicable to enforce and execute
the directions passed by respondent No.1 and get the order duly
executed.
10. For
the purpose of implementation and execution of the order in question,
the petitioner may take appropriate steps and action as may be
available under law including Section 20 of the Act, however, the
prerogative writ and powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot be permitted to be invoked for implementing the order
passed by the authority under the Act. Hence, the petition is not
entertained.
11. It
is, however, clarified that present order will not stand in the way
of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever if the petitioner takes
out any appropriate proceedings against the erring
respondent/officer in any Court or Forum including Section 20 and
Section 17 of the Act for not implementing the order passed by the
respondent no.1. If and when such proceedings are taken out by the
petitioner, the same will be decided in accordance with law.
With
the aforesaid clarifications and observations, the petition is
disposed of. Rule discharged. No costs.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.)
rakesh/
Top