HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition C No 4313 of 2008
Tritiya Verg Shaskiya Karamchari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit
...Petitioners
Versus
1 The Chhattisgarh Information Commission
2 The Joint Registrar
3 Shri C R Sahu
...Respondents
! Shri R. S. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner
^
Honble Mr Satish K Agnihotri, J
Dated: 11/08/2008
: Judgment
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
O R D E R
(Passed on this 11th Day of August, 2008)
1. The petitioner (Tritiya Verg Shaskiya Karmachari Grih
Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit) is a society of Class-III
Government employees, registered under the provisions of
the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act 1960. The
petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the
order dated 23rd June, 2008, passed by the Chhattisgarh
Information Commission (for short ‘the Commission’) in
Appeal Case No. 175/2008 to the extent of observation of
the Commission that the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act, 2005’) are
applicable to the petitioner society.
2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent No. 3
sought for certain information from the petitioner-Society.
The respondent No. 3 being aggrieved by non-supply of the
documents by the Society preferred an appeal before the
Commission. The Commission, although dismissed the appeal,
however observed that the provisions of the Act, 2005 are
applicable to the petitioner-society. Thus, this petition
challenges the observation of the Commission to the extent
of ” vr% bl vk/kkj ij ;g vf/kfu;e mDr lfefr ij ykxw gksuk
ekU; fd;k tkrk gS A “.
3. Shri R. S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the Commission though has dismissed
the appeal but the observation, as stated above, is not
proper and justified. Thus this petition, stating that the
above stated observation with regard to the applicability
of the provisions of the Act, 2005 to the petitioner-
society was made without looking into the documents asto
whether the petitioner-society was obtaining any government
aid or is a government society. Thus, the same observation
deserves to the deleted/expunged.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and perused the documents appended thereto.
5. It is well settled that if a case has become
infructuous on the facts of the case and question remains
to be decided for academic purpose, it is not necessary to
examine the case. In the matter of Basheshar Nath Vs.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and
another1, the Supreme Court observed as under :
“12. …We take the view that this Court should not
make any pronouncement on any question which is not
strictly necessary for the disposal of the
particular case before it. We, therefore, confine
our attention to Art. 14 and proceed to discuss the
question on that footing.”
6. In the matter of Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal Vs.
Rajiv Gandhi2 their Lordships observed as under :-
” 4. ….In this view grounds raised in the
petition for setting aside the election of the
respondent have been rendered academic. Court
should not undertake to decide an issue unless it
is a living issue between the parties. If an issue
is purely academic in that its decision one way or
the other would have no impact on the position of
the parties, it would be waste of public time to
engage itself in deciding it. Lord Viscount Simon
in his speech in the House of Lords in Sun Life
Assurance Co. of Canada v. Jarvis3 observed : I do
not think that it would be a proper exercise of the
authority which this House possesses to hear
appeals if it occupies time in this case in
deciding an academic question, the answer to which
cannot affect the respondent in any way. It is an
essential quality of an appeal fit to be disposed
of by his House that there should exist between the
parties to a matter in actual controversy which the
House undertakes to decide as a living issue.”
7. In the matter of Secretary, Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others Vs. Cricket
Association of Bengal and others3, the Supreme Court
observed as under :-
“121. The orders passed by the High Court have to
be viewed against the backdrop of the events and
the position of law discussed above. The
circumstances in which the High Court passed the
orders and the factual and legal considerations
which weighed with it in passing them speak for
themselves. However, since the cricket matches
have already been telecast, the question of the
legality or otherwise of the orders has become
academic and it is not necessary to pronounce our
formal verdict on the same. Hence we refrain from
doing so.”
8. In the mater of State of Manipur and others Vs.
Chandam Manihar Singh4 the Supreme Court observed as
under:-
“10. Having given our anxious consideration to the
rival contentions, we find that as the High Court’s
direction in favour of the respondent’s tenure
which is to expire on 15-10-1999 has almost worked
itself out and less than a month remains for him to
act as Chairman of the Board, the first grievance
raised by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
in connection with the removal of the respondent by
order dated 19-10-1998 has become of academic
interest. We, therefore, did not permit learned
Senior Counsel for the appellants to canvass this
point any further before us. That takes us to the
consideration of the second point.”
9. The Hon’ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
the matter of Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar5 observed as
under:-
“6. It is settled practice that this Court does
not decide matters which are only of academic
interest on the facts of a particular case. (See
with advantage: Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd.3, R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay4
and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv
Gandhi5.)“.
10. In the matter of Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs.
State of Punjab and others6 the Supreme Court observed as
under:-
” 39. So far as the question about the non-
application of mind in the sanction or absence of
sanction is concerned, this has been answered in
the first question i.e. where the public servant
has ceased to be a public servant since he has
ceased to hold the office where the alleged
offence is supposed to have taken place, the other
questions really become academic.”
11. The Commission has not recorded the finding after
having examined all the aspects of the matter. This is a
mere observation and particularly in view of the facts that
no relief was granted against the petitioner, the decision
on this issue becomes a matter of academic interest. The
Commission has declined to grant relief as sought for by
the respondent No.3. Thus, the petitioner is not an
aggrieved party to challenge the order dated 23rd June,
2008, passed by the Commission.
12. It is well settled principle of law that the question
of law on academic interest cannot be adjudicated upon, the
same should be left open for adjudication, whenever the
appropriate facts arises. The observation made by the
Commission is left open to be decided in the appropriate
facts of the case. The observation, which is under
challenge, is mere obiter and not a finding recorded by the
Commission, as the materials were not available before the
Commission to record any finding with regard to the
applicability of the provisions.
13. Applying the above stated well settled principles of
law, this petition has no merit. The petition is dismissed
accordingly.
J U D G E