Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daljit Singh vs State Information Commission, Pb & Ors on 9 October, 2014
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CWP No. 21796 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 21796 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 09.10.2014
Daljit Singh Grewal
....Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commission, Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate.
****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.
Feeling aggrieved against the impugned orders dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure P-32) and 25.10.2007 (Annexure P-33) passed by respondent No.1, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari.
Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, in compliance of the order dated 4.12.2013 passed by this Court, additional affidavit dated 20.12.2013 was also filed alongwith Annexure R-1, on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned orders passed by respondent No.1 were patently illegal because the AMIT KUMAR 2014.10.14 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 21796 of 2010 (O&M) 2 petitioner was entitled to get the information sought for. He further submits that since the information has been illegally denied to the petitioner, the impugned orders were not sustainable in law. He prays for setting aside the impugned orders, by allowing the present writ petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that petitioner is not entitled for the information being sought by him as the same pertains to third party. He further submits that whatever information was to be supplied to the petitioner, the same had already been supplied, as pointed out in the impugned order itself. He concluded by submitting that in fact, the petitioner was trying to settle his personal score by misusing the process of law. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition with costs.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the case, present writ petition has been found not only misconceived but frivolous as well and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is a matter of record and not in dispute that on the application seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act' for short), relevant information, as existed and permissible to supply under the RTI Act, was supplied to the petitioner, vide communications dated 18.5.2009 (Annexure P-16) AMIT KUMAR 2014.10.14 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 21796 of 2010 (O&M) 3 and 22.7.2009 (Annexure P-21). However, the petitioner, in order to settle his personal score with Sh. K.S.Ghumman, has been pursuing this totally unwarranted and frivolous litigation. He filed his second appeal before the State Information Commission, Punjab, whereupon the impugned orders dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure P-32) and 25.10.2007 (Annexure P-33) were passed.
Still not satisfied, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition, which is frivolous on the face of it. In fact, petitioner was feeling inimical against Sh. K.S.Ghumman because Sh. K.S.Ghumman recorded some adverse remarks against the petitioner in his Annual Confidential Report, as fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It seems that petitioner, by way of present writ petition, is trying to take revenge from Sh. K.S.Ghumman. Such kind of dishonest litigant has no place in the court of law and deserves to be dealt with an iron hand.
From the perusal of facts noticed hereinabove, it is clear that petitioner, by way of present writ petition, has tried to settle his personal score with Sh. K.S.Ghumman. Nobody can be allowed to use the process of law as his weapon to settle his personal score. Petitioner cannot be allowed to wash his dirty linen in this court under the garb of such type of wholly misconceived and frivolous litigation. Intentions of the petitioner are not at all bonafide. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that such type of frivolous litigation must be discouraged and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
The abovesaid view taken by this Court for dismissing the AMIT KUMAR 2014.10.14 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 21796 of 2010 (O&M) 4 frivolous writ petition with costs also finds support from the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and different High Courts including this High Court:-
1) M/s PFG Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2013 (3) RAJ 217.
2) Dalip Singh Vs. State of UP 2010 (2) SCC 114.
3) State of Uttranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, 2010 AIR (SC) 2550.
4) Dr. B.Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2004 (3) SCC 363.
5) Sandeep Dewakar Joshi Vs. Corporation of City of Nagpur, 2009 (5) ALL MR 771.
6) Pukhraj Shishodia Vs. State of Rajasthan 1999 AIR (Raj) 256.
Sat Paul Kagra Vs. Union of India, 2010 (1) SCT 302.
7) Baldev Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and others passed in CWP No. 6324 of 2011 decided on 22.9.2014.
8) M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33172 of 2011 decided on 12.12.2011.
The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool's case (supra) read as under:-
" In last over 10 years the petitioner made vigorous efforts to get the land released by convincing the Lok Adalat to direct the competent authority to consider and re-consider its claim. It is a different story that finally it could not succeed. We have no doubt that the time spent by the High Court in dealing with this case would have been utilised for examining the legitimate grievances of other persons who have been waiting in the queue AMIT KUMAR 2014.10.14 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 21796 of 2010 (O&M) 5 for years with the hope that some day the Court will be able to spare time for hearing their cause. Many thousand accused and convicts languish in jails for years together before they are found innocent by the trial court or the appellate court. A large number of persons who are deprived of their livelihood and property wait for decades before their cases are heard. The disposal of matrimonial cases and the cases in which compensation is claimed under various statutes also get delayed because substantial time of the Court is consumed in dealing with frivolous petitions like the present one.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. For prosecuting a frivolous litigation before the High Court and the special leave petition before this Court, the petitioner is saddled with costs of rupees five lacs which shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of cost, the Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall recover the same as arrears of land revenue."
A bare combined reading of both the impugned orders would show that whatever information was available on record and permissible under the RTI Act, had already been supplied to the AMIT KUMAR 2014.10.14 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 21796 of 2010 (O&M) 6 petitioner. The relevant part of the impugned order dated 11.12.2009, reads as under:-
"I am of the view that relevant information as existed on record and permissible under the RTI Act 2005 has been provided. As regards the third party information demanded by the appellant in a similar case filed by the appellant in (CC-
1681/2007) Hon'ble Sh. P.K.Verma, State Information Commissioner had observed that " the application for information in this case seeks information about the action taken by the government against another government employee on the basis of a complaint given by the complainant. The applicant seeks information regarding the progress which has been made in charge sheeting the employee and in effecting monetary recoveries from him. The information asked for in this case is regarding a third party and cannot be provided under the RTI Act.
Accordingly, appellant's appeal for information pertaining to a third party is dismissed being without any merit. The case is disposed of and closed."
During the course of hearing, when a pointed question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner that as to which right of the petitioner has been infringed and what locus standi the petitioner has got to file and maintain the present writ petition, he had no answer and rightly so, because it was a matter of record. Once the petitioner has failed to show infringement of any of his rights as well as locus standi to file and maintain the present writ petition, it is liable to be dismissed with costs.
AMIT KUMAR2014.10.14 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 21796 of 2010 (O&M) 7
No other argument was raised.
Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that present writ petition is not only misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, but the same is frivolous also. Thus, it must fail.
Accordingly, instant writ petition is dismissed with costs which are quantified at `25,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the Secretary, Punjab State Legal Services Authority, within two months from today.
Resultantly, instant writ petition stands dismissed with costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 09.10.2014 AK Sharma AMIT KUMAR 2014.10.14 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document