Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
M.M.S. Bedi, J.
Satish Kumar Bhiri – Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab – Respondent
CWP No. 3344 of 2017
Decided On : 05-04-2017
Right to Information Act - Information sought under the Act - 2005 - Sections 7(6), 6(2), 8 - Summary: The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, pertaining to the transfer of registration of vehicles from other districts and states. The State Information Commission closed the appeal stating that the relevant record had been inspected by the appellant and identified documents had been supplied. The court considered the voluminous nature of the information sought and the lack of disclosure of the purpose for seeking the information. It referred to Section 7(6) of the Act, which provides that in case the Public Authority fails to comply with the time limit specified, the applicant will be entitled to the information free of charge. The court also highlighted the petitioner's statutory right under Section 6(2) of the Act not to furnish any reason for requesting the information. However, it emphasized that the purpose becomes relevant in determining whether the information sought pertains to public purpose or falls under the exception under Section 8 of the Act. The court cited the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., 2012(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 559, which observed that if the information sought has no relationship to any public activity or interest and the disclosure causes unwarranted invasion of privacy of a third party, the claim for information can be denied. As the petitioner neither disclosed the reason for information nor established how the disclosure of the information related to any public activity or interest, the court upheld the closure of the application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, pertaining to the transfer of registration of vehicles from other districts and states. The State Information Commission closed the appeal stating that the relevant record had been inspected by the appellant and identified documents had been supplied.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the voluminous nature of the information sought and the lack of disclosure of the purpose for seeking the information. It referred to Section 7(6) of the Act, which provides that in case the Public Authority fails to comply with the time limit specified, the applicant will be entitled to the information free of charge. The court also highlighted the petitioner's statutory right under Section 6(2) of the Act not to furnish any reason for requesting the information. However, it emphasized that the purpose becomes relevant in determining whether the information sought pertains to public purpose or falls under the exception under Section 8 of the Act. The court cited the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., 2012(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 559, which observed that if the information sought has no relationship to any public activity or interest and the disclosure causes unwarranted invasion of privacy of a third party, the claim for information can be denied. As the petitioner neither disclosed the reason for information nor established how the disclosure of the information related to any public activity or interest, the court upheld the closure of the application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's right to information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the voluminous nature of the information sought, the lack of disclosure of the purpose for seeking the information, and the application of Sections 7(6), 6(2), and 8 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the petitioner's statutory right under Section 6(2) of the Act not to furnish any reason for requesting the information but highlighted that the purpose becomes relevant in determining whether the information sought pertains to public purpose or falls under the exception under Section 8 of the Act. It cited the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., 2012(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 559, which observed that if the information sought has no relationship to any public activity or interest and the disclosure causes unwarranted invasion of privacy of a third party, the claim for information can be denied.
Final Decision: The court upheld the closure of the application, as the petitioner neither disclosed the reason for information nor established how the disclosure of the information related to any public activity or interest.
M.M.S. Bedi, J.
The petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the State Information Commission, Punjab and other Pubic Authorities of the office of Transport Department of District Faridkot to provide information sought for by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, for short 'the Act', in his application annexure P-1. He has also challenged the order dated September 22, 2016, annexure P-6 passed by the State Information Commission vide which an appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of and the matter was closed in absence of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the case are that the petitioner had sought information under the Act from the Public Information Officer of the District Transport Officer Faridkot, vide application dated April 22, 2015 pertaining to the number of cases of transfer of registration of vehicles of every category from other districts and States from April 1, 2010 till the date of filing of application and attested copies of all the documents attached to register the vehicles from other Districts and States from April 1, 2010 till the date of application. Petitioner claims that when respondent No.4 failed to provide the information, he filed first appeal dated June 26, 2015 before the State Transport Commissioner but he did not provide such information. Petitioner claims that he filed second appeal before respondent No.2- State Information Commission, Punjab, seeking a direction to respondents No.3 and 4 to supply information sought for by him as per his application under the Act. It is averred in the petition that on notice in the second appeal, respondent No.3 issued a letter dated December 1, 2015 to respondent No.2 in which it was stated that the information sought for by the petitioner belongs to third party who are in lacs and it is impossible to inform about so many persons. Apart from this, there are 10/15 papers attached with each document and it was impossible to photocopy the same because to photocopy these documents apart from staff 4/5 months time would be required and the expense would be in lacs. Copy of the letter has been placed on record as annexure P-4. The grievance of the petitioner is that it was the duty of respondent No.4 to inform about the extent and other terms for seeking the information as per the provisions of the Act, but nothing was done. Petitioner had gone to the office of respondent No.4 as per the directions of respondent No.2 on May 12, 2016 but respondent No.4 denied for inspection of the record and refused to supply the copies identified by him on the pretext that information sought for is huge and voluminous and it is related to the third party.
3. The second appeal filed by the petitioner has been closed vide order annexure P-6 by State Information Commission which reads as follows :-
"Present: None on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondents.
Shri Satish Kumar Appellant vide an RTI application dated 22.04.2015 addressed to PIO, sought certain information on three points regarding the vehicles which have been transferred from other districts and other states during the period from 1.4.2010 till date.
2. Today, none is present on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondents. However, a letter dated 21.9.2016 has been received through email from DTO, Faridkot informing that the relevant record has been inspected by the appellant and identified documents have been supplied to him. The appellant is not present without any intimation nor any observations have been received from him which shows that he is satisfied with the provided information.
3. Accordingly, the case is disposed of and closed."
4. Vide order dated February 21, 2017, the petitioner was required to furnish an affidavit that he was ready to deposit the tentative cost of information which was approximately Rs. 2/3 lacs in advance. On March 29, 2017, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
