THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 21.05.2010

+

WP (C) 12714/2009

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

...

Petitioner

- versus -

CENTRAL INFORMATION COM MISSION

AND ANOTHER

...

Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:-

For the Petitioner

: Mr Ajay Verma

For the Respondent No.1

: Prof. K.K. Nigam

For the Respondent No.2

: Mr Sarabjit Roy (In person)

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

PREFACE

1.

Information is power. This is truer now, in this information age, than

ever before. In a democracy this power of information which the public

authorities possess is to be shared with the people. But at the same time, not

every piece of information is to be made public. There is the public interest

and democratic purpose in dissemination of information on the one hand and

the competing private rights and national interests in general non-disclosure,

2010:DHC:2844-DB

on the other. This is recognized in the preamble to the Right to Information

Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the said Act‘) itself:-

―And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and

transparency of information which are vital to its functioning

and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and

their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;

And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is

likely to conflict with other public interests including

efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of

limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality

of sensitive information;

And whereas it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting

interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic

ideal‖

(emphasis supplied)

Thus, the flow of information is not to be an unregulated flood. It needs to

be controlled just as the flow of water is controlled by a tap. Those

empowered to handle this ‗tap‘ of information are imbued with great power.

Under the said Act, this power is to be exercised by the Information

Commissions (State and Central). But, the power is clearly not plenary,

unrestricted, limitless or unguided. The Information Commissions are set up

under the said Act and they have to perform their functions and duties within

the precincts marked out by the legislature. As we shall see, this is a case

where the Central Information Commission and the Chief Information

Commissioner have travelled beyond their boundaries of power and have

thereby transgressed the provisions of the very Act which created them.

The Facts:

2.

The petitioner (Delhi Development Authority), by way of this writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks the issuance of

2010:DHC:2844-DB

a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing / setting aside the order dated

22.09.2009 passed by the Central Information Commission upon a complaint

filed by the respondent No.2. The petitioner also seeks the quashing / setting

aside of the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations,

2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the impugned Regulations‘) on the ground

that they are ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter

referred to as ‗the RTI Act‘). In particular, the petitioner prays for the

quashing of Chapter IV with specific emphasis on Regulation 20, which

makes provision for the conduct of an inquiry. The petitioner is also

aggrieved by the fact that the Central Information Commission required the

presence of the Vice-Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority in the

course of proceedings before it and the fact that the said Vice-Chairman

could not be present was commented upon adversely by the Central

Information Commiss