Point of Law: Every right legal or moral carried with it a corresponding obligation. It is subject to several exemptions and exceptions indicated in the broad terms. It has been further propounded that if any reasonable restrictions is imposed in the interest of State by reason of a valid piece of legislation

ORDER :

1. The present petition is filed by an independent registered Public Charitable Trust through its Chief Executive, invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and has sought the following reliefs :-

“8(A) To quash and set aside the impugned orders annexed at Annexure – A Colly and hold and declare the same as improper, unjust, unconstitutional and unfair and in violation of provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to not to pass any orders in nature of issuing direction of banning, prohibiting and/or blacklisting any citizen from any specific or indefinite time period.

(C) To grant any other and further reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper and in the interest of justice.”

2. The petition is filed basically for raising grievance against the impugned order on the premise that the respondent – authorities have no power to blacklist a person who is seeking information and further has no authority to prevent a citizen from soliciting information for a period of five years. Of course, this petition is not filed by those two aggrieved persons who applied and against whom the impugned orders have been passed. But the present – Trust being a charitable Trust has come forward to assail the orders passed in two different applications by the present combined petitions.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Amresh Patel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner – Trust has submitted that a clear error is committed by the respondent – authorities while passing the impugned orders and further has no authority to place the concerned applicant in blacklist and preventing him from soliciting any information. Such orders are frustrating the very object of the Act and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has submitted that the present petitioner is an organization, is helping out such kind of victimized citizens through the petitioner – Trust is not concerned about the veracity or information or value thereof. It is only concerned with these two issues where the prohibition is imposed by the authority and placing the concerned applicant in a blacklist, the Trust has no other intention, and no other concerned about the grievance which is tried to be raised by the applicants against whom the orders have been passed. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has submitted that every citizen has a legitimate expectation that the authority concerned will abide by the law, will maintain spirit and the object of the statue and citizens may not be curbed to raise any voice. If the orders in question are allowed to be operated, according to learned advocate Mr. Patel, the same would oppress the citizens to seek any information under the relevant statute. That being the position, the orders in question are required to be quashed and set aside with consequential directions.

3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Patel to strenuously strengthen his submissions has sought to rely upon few decisions which are reproduced hereunder :-

1. Ram Parvesh Singh v. State of Bihar (2006) 8 SCC 381.

2. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235.

3. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed (1976) 1 SCC 671.

4. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v . Union of India (2004) 2 SCC 476.

3.2. After referring to some of the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions has prayed to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. No other submissions have been made.

4. On an advance copy, Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the respondent - authority and has seriously raised an issue that the present petition at the instance of Public Charitable Trust who is not concerned about information, nor concerned about the conduct of the applicant, is also not concerned even about the outcome of the orders and having no interest as such, is not entitle