Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 2711
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
T. Venkatesan - Appellant
Versus
The Joint Director of School Education, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.No. 5188 of 2011
Decided On : 15-12-2021
For the Petitioner:S.N. Ravichandran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M.S. Arasakumar, Government Advocate (Education), R4, Niranjan Rajagopal, Advocate.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8 (1) (g) - To furnish copy of documents and statements sought by petitioner in his application - Application submitted under RTI Act, seeking information’s were not responded - Complaint filed by him before Tamil Nadu Information Commission was also rejected - Writ petitioner mainly contended that rejection of information under Section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act is untenable as writ petitioner has sought for certain questions, which would be relevant for purpose of defending his case – Held, it is always nature of information sought for, is factor to be considered for purpose of invoking Section 8 of RTI Act - Once informations sought for reveals that same may would endanger life or physical safety of any person or identify source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes, then Public Information Officer is justified in rejecting application submitted by information seeker - Any application submitted under RTI Act is independent and to be dealt in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act and not otherwise - Informations sought for by petitioner was rejected by invoking Section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act - Even Section 8 (1) (e) is also relevant with reference to facts and circumstances of present case Rejection of application submitted by petitioner under RTI Act would not dis-entitle him to defend allegations before competent authority at time of conduct of enquiry with reference to complaint filed by women employees - Right of defense is unconnected with the application submitted under RTI Act - Rejection of application under RTI Act will not cause any prejudice with reference to right of delinquent official from defending his case in enquiry proceedings - Order of rejection would not infringe right of petitioner from defending his case before competent authority under Sexual Harassment Act or under Disciplinary Rules of Department - Application under RTI Act cannot be related to disciplinary proceedings or any other proceedings pending before other competent authorities under various enactments or rules in force - Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order in Dispute No.28192/10 on the file of the Commissioner, Tamilnadu Information Commissioner, Chennai-18 and QUASH the same and direct the respondents to furnish copy of the documents and statements sought by the petitioner by application dated 26.12.2008 under Right to Information Act.)
The writ petition is filed, challenging the order impugned dated 21.12.2010 passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission and a direction is sought for to furnish the copy of the documents and statements sought by the petitioner in his application dated 26.12.2008 filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as the -RTI Act-]
2. The petitioner was working as the Headmaster of Zamindar Street School and a complaint against the petitioner was filed regarding the alleged Sexual Harassment. The complaint was filed by One Smt.S.Vasantha. The Committee constituted by the respondents, conducted an enquiry into the complaint. The petitioner sought for the copy of the enquiry report and the said report was not furnished. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected and earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.30887 of 2008.
3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the application submitted under the RTI Act, seeking informations were not responded. The complaint filed by him before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission was also rejected. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the rejection of information under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act is untenable as the writ petitioner has sought for certain questions, which would be relevant for the purpose of defending his case. It is contended that 8 (1) (g) of the Act cannot be an impediment for the purpose of providing such informations sought for by the petitioner as those informations are necessary for the purpose of defending the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the rejection order passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission is untenable.
5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of M.Velayutham Vs. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Information Commission, reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 1537 and the relevant paragraphs 10 and 11 are extracted hereunder:
10. Before closing the case it must be noted that whenever a person challenges the order of the State or Central Information Commission, it is not necessary to make the Commission a party to the writ petition. The Commission is a statutory appellate authority and is expected to function within the four corners of the RTI Act. If its orders are under challenge, the Commission is not expected to defend it. In a writ for certiorari the order will have to speak for itself. If the Commission is made as a party, it will be an unnecessary drain on the Commission to engage counsel to defend its orders. In no case a court is expected to defend its decisions. More often, the Commission-s orders are challenged by the Government departments or information officers at the expense of the Government. In these cases, the applicant who sought the information will be a party and will be expected to defend his request.
11. Only for the purpose of calling for records or sending a copy of the order, the Information Commission need not be made as a party. If the persons who do not file proper records, then a notice may be sent by the Registry to call for the records if ordered by the courts. Likewise, on complicated matters if any legal assistance is required, the Court can appoint an -amicus curiae- to help the Court. The orders of the Court on all matters involving the Right to Information Act, as a matter of routine, can be marked to the appropriate Commission. The Registry shall henceforth must ask
