W.P. (C) Nos. 295 & 608 of 2011

Page 1 of 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W. P. (C) 295/2011

Reserved on: 23^rd May 2011

Decision on: 3^rd June 2011

B S MATHUR

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Kunal Sinha, Advocate.

versus

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

OF DELHI HIGH COURT

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate.

AND

W. P. (C) 608/2011

B S MATHUR

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Kunal Sinha, Advocate.

versus

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

OF DELHI HIGH COURT

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be

allowed to see the judgment?

Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?

Yes

JUDGMENT

03.06.2011

1. In Writ Petition (Civil) 295 of 2011, the Petitioner challenges an order dated 6^th

2011:DHC:3129

W.P. (C) Nos. 295 & 608 of 2011

Page 2 of 12

September 2010, passed by the Central Information Commission („CIC‟) dismissing his

appeal against an order dated 28^th April 2010 of the Appellate Authority of the High

Court of Delhi under the Right to Information Act, 2005 („RTI Act‟) declining to furnish

the complete information sought by him in RTI Application No. 184 of 2008.

2. In Writ Petition (Civil) 608 of 2011 the Petitioner challenges the same order insofar as

it relates to the dismissal of his Appeal Nos. 314 and 315 dated 13^th August 2010 in

relation to RTI Application Nos. 35 and 36 of 2010.

Factual matrix

3. The Petitioner was a Member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Pursuant to a

Resolution dated 26^th August 2008 of the Full Court, a Committee of five Judges of the

High Court heard the Petitioner on 29^th May 2008 and decided that it was desirable to

place him under suspension pending disciplinary action. While disposing of his writ

petition challenging the order of suspension, the Supreme Court by an order dated 13^th

August 2008 directed that the inquiry against the Petitioner may be completed within a

period of five months. On 3^rd November 2008, a memorandum was issued to the

Petitioner furnishing him the articles of charges, statement of imputation of misconduct,

list of witnesses and documents along with the documents. The Petitioner‟s statement of

defence was considered by the Full Court at a meeting held on 27^th November 2008. A

learned Judge of the High Court was appointed as the Inquiry Officer.

4. On 19^th August 2008, the Petitioner filed an application No. 143 of 2008 under the RTI

Act seeking the following information:

(i)

Copy of directions of Committee of Hon‟ble Inspecting Judges

allowing Registrar (Vig.) to scrutinise personal file of applicant

containing intimations supplied under the Conduct Rules.

(ii)

Copy of the report of the Registrar (Vig.) dated 06.02.2008 in

compliance of (i) above.

(iii)

Copy of the minutes of the meeting of the committee of the

Hon‟ble Inspecting Judges dated 14.2.2008.

(iv)

Copy of the minutes of the meeting of the committee of the

Hon‟ble Inspecting Judges held on 03.04.2008.

2011:DHC:3129

W.P. (C) Nos. 295 & 608 of 2011

Page 3 of 12

(v)

Copy of the minutes of the meeting of the committee of the

Hon‟ble Inspecting Judges dated 14.05.2008.

(vi)

Copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Administrative

Committee held on 19.5.2008.

(vii)

Copies of the comments and/or material supplied/placed before the

committee of the Hon‟ble Inspecting Judges.

(viii) Copies of the comments and/or material supplied/placed before the

Hon‟ble Full Court prior to its meeting dated 26.