Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3524/2011 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3524 of 2011
=========================================================
RITESH
LALITCHANDRA DESAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MAHENDRA U VORA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JANAK RAVAL AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 23/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Present
petition is directed against the order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the
learned Commissioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
2. From
the facts stated by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner
had, in September-2007, made an application under the provision of
the Act and sought certain information. The Competent Authority had
responded to the said notice by its reply dated 14.09.2007.
3. It
also appears that the concerned department had filed objection
against the said application and thereafter, the application was
admitted by the concerned authority for hearing and decision.
4. The
petitioner has claimed that by communication dated 26.10.2007, the
Competent Authority had directed the petitioner to deposit the amount
as per the Rules framed under the Act.
5. After
the petitioner deposited the requisite fees, the information was
supplied to the petitioner by the order dated 03.11.2007.
6. Subsequently,
an appeal was filed in November-2007 since, according to the
petitioner, the information supplied to him was not adequate or
complete. Appellate Authority passed an order dated 20.11.2007
directing the authority to provide the information to the petitioner.
7. Even
after the said direction, the petitioner was not satisfied and that
therefore, he prosecuted the appeal further. Therefore, the Appellate
Authority directed the contesting parties to remain present for
hearing on 26th December, 2007, however, the petitioner
could not attend the hearing due to personal difficulties.
8. The
petitioner has asserted that he was allowed to inspect the file and
upon inspection, he noticed that some pages were missing, thus he
placed the said fact before the Appellate Authority.
9. Subsequently
after hearing present petitioner and the opponent, the learned
Commissioner passed the order dated 12.05.2010 which is impugned in
present petition.
10. Mr.Vora,
learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner. Mr.Vora, learned
advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has
not been supplied necessary information as requested for by him.
Mr.Vora, learned advocate, has also submitted that on inspection of
file, he has noticed that certain pages were missing. Mr.Vora,
learned advocate, has submitted that the order does not carry the
object of statute further and has been passed without appreciating
the fact that every citizen has right to receive information. Instead
of passing order in consonance with the object of the Act, the
learned Commissioner has committed error in passing the impugned
order rejecting the petitioner’s application.
11. On
perusal of the order passed by the learned Commissioner, it comes out
that the learned Commissioner has taken note of every applications
moved by the petitioner and the various orders passed from time to
time.
11.1 The
learned Commissioner has also taken into account the fact that after
the earlier order, the Appellate Authority had passed further order
directing the concerned department to provide the petitioner record
from Pages-1 to 17 of the file and the said details were provided to
the petitioner on 26th November, 2007 and thereafter, the
petitioner filed fresh appeal and on 27th May, 2008.
11.2 He
had represented that the copies of certain documents were not made
available.
11.3 The
said grievance has also been taken into consideration during the
hearing on 20.06.2008 and it has been addressed by the learned
Commissioner.
11.4 It
is also recorded by the learned Commissioner that the file pertaining
to the sale of plot was made available for inspection by the
petitioner, on 23rd June, 2008, he was also allowed to
take out the copies of the relevant documents which he required.
11.5 It
is recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner had requested
for copies of 22 pages which were made available to him.
11.6 After
taking into account, all the aspects, particularly the aforesaid
aspects, the learned Commissioner has reached to the conclusion that
the relevant and necessary documents/information, as prayed for by
the petitioner and as available on the file/with the authority were
made available to him and that therefore, there was no reason to
accept the petitioner’s application that he had not received the
information.
11.7 The
learned Commissioner has, after taking into account the material
supplied to the petitioner, recorded the conclusion that the
petitioner failed to make out any substantial ground to establish
that the information sought for was not made available to him.
11.8 The
learned Commissioner has recorded a specific and categorical finding
to the effect that the petitioner’s allegation that the information
is not supplied or not made available to him cannot be accepted.
12. Such
being the finding of fact, there is no reason to interfere with the
impugned order, more so, when during the hearing, the petitioner has
failed to establish, by showing relevant details and material
regarding the allegation that certain information was not made
available to him.
13. If
it is the allegation of the petitioner that some pages were/are
missing from the file then the petitioner’s remedy may be before
appropriate forum but on that ground, the impugned order of the
Commissioner cannot be faulted.
14. Since
the petitioner has failed to point out anything from the record which
could lead the Court to conclusion that the finding reached by the
learned Commissioner is perverse or contrary to the material on
record, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. Hence, the
petition fails and the same is rejected. Notice is discharged.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.)
rakesh/
Top
