Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Augustine George Masih, J.
Ashish - Appellant
Versus
State Information Commissioner Haryana & Ors. - Respondent
RA-CW-194-2020, CM-9430-CWP-2020 with CM-13140-CWP-2020, CM-9431-CWP-2020 with CM-42-CWP-2021 in CWP-6874-2018
Decided On : 06-01-2021
Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate and Ms. Shubhra Singh, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for the Appellant; Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the Respondent
An order that cannot be practically complied with does not amount to contempt of court.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - CCTV Footage - The court dismissed the prayer for impleading the investigating officer as a party and clarified that non-compliance of the order due to non-availability of CCTV footage would not render the respondents liable for contempt of court.
Fact of the Case:
The court dismissed the prayer for impleading the investigating officer as a party and clarified that non-compliance of the order due to non-availability of CCTV footage would not render the respondents liable for contempt of court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-availability of CCTV footage due to automatic erasing provision from the DVR storage was a valid reason for non-compliance with the order.
Issues: Prayer for impleading investigating officer as a party, non-compliance with the order due to non-availability of CCTV footage, and liability for contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: An order that cannot be practically complied with does not amount to contempt of court. Non-availability of CCTV footage due to automatic erasing provision is a valid reason for non-compliance.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the prayer for impleading the investigating officer as a party and clarified that non-compliance of the order due to non-availability of CCTV footage would not render the respondents liable for contempt of court.
JUDGMENT
CM-9430-CWP-2020
1. CM. is allowed subject to just exceptions. Filing of certified copy of annexure is dispensed with and true copy of the same is accepted.
CM-13140-CWP-2020
2. Prayer in this application is for impleading Head Constable Rajinder No. 1659 as respondent No. 4 in the main writ petition.
3. The reason for impleading him as a party is that the CCTV Footage of the incident dated 20.11.2015 has been provided to him who was the Investigating Officer of the assault committed upon the petitioner in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad.
4. Keeping in view the scope of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, the prayer made by the applicant-petitioner cannot be accepted and, therefore, the same is dismissed.
CM-42-CWP-2021
5. CM. is allowed subject to just exceptions. Filing of certified copy of Annexures P-4 and P-5 is dispensed with and affidavit dated 04.01.2021 of the petitioner along with true typed/photo copies of documents Annexures P-4 and P-5 are taken on record.
RA-CW-194-2020
6. This review application has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 for review of the order dated 22.05.2019 whereby the writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the applicant-respondents No. 2 and 3 to supply the information, as sought by the petitioner on Point No. 1 in his application dated 26.12.2015 (Annexure A-5), which was the CCTV Footage of the incident dated 20.11.2015, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
7. The primary plea, which was taken by the applicant-respondents No. 2 and 3, is based upon a fact that the CCTV Footage is kept intact for a period of 20 days and after completion of the said period, there is an automatic erasing provision from the DVR storage. The said information, therefore, being not available with the respondents even at the time when the interim order was passed by this Court on 19.03.2018, the order passed by this Court would be impossible to comply with. It is on this basis that the review and recall of the order passed by this Court has been sought.
8. Counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner states that the present application cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that this was never the stand of the applicant-respondents No. 2 and 3. All through the stand, which has been taken by the applicant-respondents No. 2 and 3, is only limited to the extent for exemption from disclosure, as provided for under Section 8 (1) (g) under the Right to Information Act, 2005.If that would have been the factual position, the stand should have been taken at a very first instance when the application has been preferred by the petitioner for supplying information under the Right to Information Act on 26.12.2015. The said position now, therefore, be not accepted and it would not be a ground for review of the order.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant-respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that in principle, the applicant-respondents No. 2 and 3 have accepted the fact that the order, as passed by this Court, is in accordance with law and, therefore, needs to be complied with but because of the non-availability of the information and that too, on the basis of the automatic erasing of the DVR Storage of the CCTV Footage, the order cannot be given effect to practically because of the fact that the CCTV Footage cannot be retrieved. The information, thus, cannot be supplied to the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that the order, as passed by this Court, in principle is acceptable to the applicant-respondents No. 2 and 3 but because of the non-practicality for complying with the same, the present application has been filed.
10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the limited scope of the review, the prayer of the applicant-respondents No. 2 and 3 for recall of the order cannot be accepted. However, it is clarified that in case the said information is no
