Madhya Pradesh High Court
Municipal Corporation , Bhopal vs Madhya Pradesh State Information ... on 9 July, 2014
W.A.No.785/2011
1
Municipal Corporation Bhopal Vs. MP State Information Commission & Anr.
09/07/2014
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None appears for Respondent No.2, even though notices have
been issued and served on him. It seems that he has refused to accept
the notice.
Calling in question tenability of an order dated 13th of July,
2011 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(s)No.11181/2011, this appeal
has been filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.
Facts in nutshell go to show that Respondent No.2 Shri Hifzur
Rehman submitted an application to the competent authority of the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal initially in the year 2007 vide Annexure-P1 on 15.5.2007 and sought for four categories of information; they are
(a) Particulars of all public function held and conducted by the Municipal Corporation Bhopal right from the year 2000 till filing of the application in the year 2007 with regard to various festivals and expenses incurred for inviting dignities, establishment of stage, lighting, tent, pipe, pandal, refreshments and other incidental expenses incurred for holding such functions.
(b) Public functions held since 2002 for celebrating birthdays and birth anniversaries for eminent persons and the expenses incurred on various counts including erection of tents, providing of refreshments, transportation etc. (c ) Information with regard to expenses incurred right from the year 2000 for all functions held by the Municipal Corporation for opening ceremonies, foundation lane ceremonies and various other official functions held by the Municipal Corporation in connection with the important events.
W.A.No.785/2011 2Municipal Corporation Bhopal Vs. MP State Information Commission & Anr.
(d) Information with regard to expenses incurred for publication of news items and advertisement in various news papers in connection with these functions.
The Municipal Corporation gave certain information vide Annexure-P2 on 23.8.2007 and gave the list of functions held and various other particulars of the dignities in whose favour the functions were held but as the information was not sufficient, it seems that the matter was taken up for proceeding under the Right to Information Act and finally the authorities under the Right to Information Act directed the Municipal Corporation Bhopal through it's Commissioner to make available all the relevant documents for inspection to the respondent in the office of the Corporation and the respondent after inspecting the records was given liberty to seek specific document and information by moving a separate application.
It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to these orders passed on 26th of September, 2008 vide Annexure-P6 and subsequently, on 16.12.2008, the respondent did not conduct any inspection nor did he come to the office of the Corporation instead filed another application on 26th of February, 2009 vide Annexure-P9 and sought for the same information as was sought by him earlier. This information was also supplied by Annexure-P10 to some extent but thereafter, he filed another application Annexure-P11 on 8.3.2010 and again sought for same information under four different heads.
However, when an application was filed, Chief Information Commissioner by the impugned order on 22nd of December, 2010 directed the Municipal Corporation to come with all the records to the Office of Information Commission and the Respondent No.2 was W.A.No.785/2011 3 Municipal Corporation Bhopal Vs. MP State Information Commission & Anr.
granted liberty to inspect the records in the Office of Information Commission.
Grievance of the petitioner is that the records pertaining for a period of 10 years right from the year 2000 till 2010 are bulky and they are unable to transport all the records and bring them to the office of Information Commission and it was their case that as the respondent could inspect the documents in the premises of the office of Municipal Corporation and inspite of the opportunity being granted, he did not do so, it was said that the indulgence be made in the writ petition.
The Writ Court went into all these aspects of the matter but refused to interfere only on the ground that the information are relevant and cannot be denied.
Shri Bhatnagar, learned counsel argued that the petitioners have never denied to diverge the information, they had only expressed their difficulty in carrying the bulky records and transporting all the documents right from the year 2000 upto 2010 to the office of Information Commission and making them available there. They had already agreed for inspection of the documents and Respondent No.2 for reasons, which are undisclosed and is known best to him, did not inspect the documents, instead he is trying to harass the Municipal Corporation in this manner by filing repeated applications without any justification.
It is argued by learned counsel that these aspects of the matter were totally lost site of by the Writ Court and the direction issued by the Writ Court and the Chief Information Commissioner in the second appeal are unsustainable. It is said that the Municipal Corporation is willing to diverge all the information but Respondent No.2 should ask for specific information based on documents W.A.No.785/2011 4 Municipal Corporation Bhopal Vs. MP State Information Commission & Anr.
available and the impugned order directing for producing all the documents in the office of State Information Commission is nothing but a misuse of the process of law and harassment to the officials of the Corporation, which is unsustainable.
We have considered the contentions advanced and we have gone through the records. Admittedly, the information sought for by Respondent No.2 is highly vague and not specific. However, the information may be relevant but as he is seeking information for a period of more than 10 years and the records in this regard are bulky and it would be not in the fitness of things to expect the Municipal Corporation to depute officials to transport all the documents to the office of State Information Commission and permit inspection there. It may take lot of time and is also not practical. Under such circumstances, it was appropriate for the Writ Court and the Chief Information Commissioner to permit Respondent No.2 to inspect the relevant documents and, thereafter, seek for specific information based on inspection conducted instead of directing the Municipal Corporation to transport all the records for a period of 10 years to the Office of State Information Commissioner. The orders passed by the Chief Information Commissioner on 22.12.2010 and it's affirmation by the Writ Court by the impugned order dated 13.7.2011 in the considered view of this Court was only unreasonable and unjustified and it operates too harsh to the appellant and it's implementation is also very impractical.
In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. The orders impugned dated 22.12.2010 passed by Respondent No.1 and the order passed by the Writ Court are quashed, so far as they direct for producing the documents in the office of Chief Information Commissioner and permitting inspection of the same in the office of W.A.No.785/2011 5 Municipal Corporation Bhopal Vs. MP State Information Commission & Anr.
Information Commission by Respondent No.2, instead it is modified to the extent that after giving due notice of inspection, if Respondent No.2 requests the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation for inspection of the records in question, the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation Bhopal shall permit inspection of the documents within a period of 15 days' from the date of receipt of request by Respondent No.2. He shall fix a date and time when the inspection should be carried on and ensure proper facilities being made to Respondent No.2 for inspection of the documents and based on such inspection, Respondent No.2 shall file an application for taking certified copy of the documents and on payment of the requisite fees, certified copy of the documents shall be made available to Respondent No.2.
With the aforesaid modification to the orders passed by the Authorities and the Writ Court, this writ appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
nd