Back
2016 Supreme(All) 1955
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, CJ., Yashwant Varma, J.
Rajesh Kumar Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Union of India And 6 Others - Respondent
Public Interest Litigation (Pil) No. - 4424 of 2016
Decided On : 02-02-2016
For the Petitioner: Yashpal Yadav.
For the Respondent: Vivek Singh.
The court emphasized that the information required to be disclosed should be done so unless authorities take recourse to remedies available in law.
Headnote:
Corruption - Complaint by Press Reporter - Disclosure of Investigation - Right to Information Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a press reporter, filed a complaint regarding allegations of corruption and malpractices in a recruitment examination. The Central Information Commission directed the disclosure of the general conclusions of the investigation to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to entertain the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's role was that of a complainant and there was no justification for the court to monitor the inquiry. The court emphasized that the information required to be disclosed should be done so unless authorities take recourse to remedies available in law.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's request for the court to issue orders directing the disclosure of investigation conclusions and completion of the investigation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it was not inclined to monitor the inquiry or take on the obligation of doing so. It emphasized that the information required to be disclosed should be done so unless authorities take recourse to remedies available in law.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Yashwant Varma, J.
The petitioner who is a press reporter submitted a complaint in regard to allegations of corruption and malpractices in the holding of an examination for recruitment of Group-D employees in the North Eastern Railway on 16 October 2011. The complaint has been investigated. It appears from the record that on 17 February 2015, the Central Information Commission has issued a direction for the disclosure of the general conclusions of the investigation to the petitioner. On 18 August 2015, the petitioner was informed by the Public Information Officer that the matter pertaining to his complaint is still under investigation.
2. The relief which the petitioner now seeks is in the following terms:
?(a) issue an appropriate order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus and direct respondent Chairman Railway Board to take a final decision on the inquiry report held on complaint of the petitioner dated 8.11.2011 and sent by NE Railway on 29.5.2014 within a specified timeframe.
(b) issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent C.P.I.O., N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur to supply ?the general conclusion of the investigation to the petitioner? as directed by CIC vide order dated 9.2.2015, within a specified timeframe.
(c) issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to otherwise complete the investigation proceedings and take final decision on the complaint of the petitioner dated 8.11.2011 before retirement of respondent PK Srivastava on 31.3.2016.?
3. We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The role of the petitioner in the matter at the highest is that of a complainant. The inquiry process was set in motion following the complaint of the petitioner. There is no reason or justification for this Court to monitor the inquiry or to take upon itself the obligation of doing that. The information which is required to be disclosed to the petitioner in terms of the order of the CIC dated 17 February 2015 would have to be disclosed unless the authorities take recourse to the remedies available in law. If there is any breach of the direction of the CIC, the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue the remedies under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for disclosure of the information.
4. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
