Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 433
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
K.M. Joseph, Alok Singh, JJ.
Surendra Aggarwal – Appellant
Vs.
Chief Information Commissioner – Respondent
Special Appeal No. 110 of 2015
Decided On : 22-06-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mohd. Matloob, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel, State of Uttarakhand
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the State Information Commissioner's authority and the emphasis on the purpose of the Right to Information Act in promoting transparency and combating corruption.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Appellant's Appeal - Sections 186, 189, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - The court discussed the Right to Information Act, the Indian Penal Code, and the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. It highlighted the limitations of the State Information Commissioner's authority and emphasized the purpose of the Right to Information Act in promoting transparency and combating corruption.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a President of an organization, sought information under the Right to Information Act. The State Information Commissioner dismissed the appeals and accused the appellant of offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Information Commissioner exceeded his authority by asking the District Magistrate to conduct an inquiry and report back. It emphasized the limitations of the Commissioner's powers and the misuse of the Right to Information Act.
Issues: The issues involved the State Information Commissioner's authority, the appellant's misuse of the Right to Information Act, and the legality of the Commissioner's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Information Commissioner had no authority to ask the District Magistrate to conduct an inquiry and report back. It emphasized the purpose of the Right to Information Act in promoting transparency and accountability.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the portion of the Commissioner's actions. The court clarified that this decision would not prevent competent officers from taking lawful actions against the appellant.
K.M. Joseph, J.
1. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed calling in question order dated 13.08.2013 passed by the second respondent State Information Commissioner.
2. Brief facts, as set out in the writ petition, appears to be as follows:
By Annexure No. 1 dated 14.01.2013, Annexure No. 2 dated 18.02.2013 and Annexure No. 3 dated 16.03.2013, appellant, who claims to be a President of an organization, had sought information from the third respondent. Pursuant to Annexure No. 1, Annexure No. 4 information was provided. Being dissatisfied, appellant filed Annexure No. 5 appeal before the first appellate authority. Annexure No. 6 purports to be an order passed by the first appellate authority. Appellant filed Annexure No. 7 second appeal. He also moved Annexure No. 8 application. Annexure No. 10 purports to be the information provided pursuant to Annexure No. 2 application. Being dissatisfied, appellant filed Annexure No. 11 appeal. Annexure No. 12 is the order passed on Annexure No. 11 appeal. Thereupon, appellant filed Annexure No. 13 second appeal. Annexure No. 14 purports to be the information supplied pursuant to Annexure No. 3 application. Against the same, appellant filed Annexure No. 15 appeal before the first appellate authority. Annexure No. 16 is the order passed in the appeal. Appellant, thereupon, filed Annexure No. 17 second appeal. Annexure No. 18, according to the appellant, is an order passed by the second appellate authority finding some merit in the case of the appellant. Then, appellant filed Annexure No. 19 application before the Chief Information Commissioner to transfer the case from the second respondent State Information Commissioner. Annexure No. 20 is the order by which the second respondent clubbed all the four appeals and, finally, by Annexure No. 21 dated 13.08.2013, the second respondent State Information Commissioner dismissed the appeals. Apart from dismissing the appeals, the State Information Commissioner also proceeded to take a strong view that the appellant would appear to be guilty of offences including under Sections 186 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code. He also was of the view that the appellant would appear to be guilty of offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. This is besides adverting to the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. It was found that, under Sections 2(kha)(iv), (viii), (ix) of the said Act, prima facie, an offence is made out against the appellant and it was also found that the District Magistrate is the most important officer of the district and it is the duty of the District Magistrate to maintain peace, law and order in the district and, for this, he has got several statutes. Accordingly, it was held as follows:
"Hence it is expected from the District Magistrate Dehradun that by taking note of above opinion of Commission, necessary action be taken against the appellant and inform the Commission about the action within one month so that fearless atmosphere be made in between officers/employees and no shame could be felt by the RTI activist who works honestly and no problem would come to them and occupation of journalist may not feel shame and the persons or unions who are working honestly in the area of RTI they may not be discouraged and do the work as per law in district."
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, appellant is before us.
4. We have heard Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Mohd. Matloob, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent; and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
5. A contention was raised regarding the maintainability of the special appeal. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules provides as follows:
"5. Special appeal.—An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judg
