Gujarat High Court
Bachubhai Premabhai Gamit vs State Of Gujarat on 6 December, 2018
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/12190/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12190 of 2017
==========================================================
BACHUBHAI PREMABHAI GAMIT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR LIYAKAT I MEHTA(3555) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 06/12/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in which the petitioner has prayed for the following relief/s:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may please to admit and allow this petition.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may please to direct the respondent authority to supply the information as per the prescribed in the first appeal and second appeal the accidental death of the father of the petitioner.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may please to imposed the cost as per the sec. 20 of the RTI Act 2005.
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in interest of justice;"Page 1 of 6 C/SCA/12190/2017 ORDER
2. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner is missing since 09.10.1981. Nothing was heard about him. There were certain disputes with the near relatives with regard to the land. It is submitted that in the year 2003, an application came to be filed to the Hon'ble the Chief Minister wherein it was pointed out that the husband of the said applicant - mother of the petitioner herein, is missing since 1981 and in the revenue record of the concerned land, names of some persons are mentioned as legal heirs of the husband of the applicant. It is submitted that it is not clear whether the husband of the said applicant has expired or not. Therefore, a request was made to consider the said representation and give necessary direction to the concerned authorities. It is submitted that on the basis of the said application given to Hon'ble the Chief Minister, the concerned District Magistrate informed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vyara to carry out an inquiry and the said Sub-Divisional Magistrate addressed a letter dated 05.04.2004 to the District Magistrate, Surat, wherein he informed that the husband of the applicant died in accident. The said information was given to the District Magistrate and District Magistrate, in turn, informed the mother of the present petitioner. It is submitted Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/12190/2017 ORDER that a copy of the letter dated 05.04.2004 addressed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate though demanded was not provided to the petitioner. Petitioner, therefore, filed an application under the Right to Information Act to the respondent authority and asked for information, and more particularly, about the letter dated 05.04.2004 written by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The respondent authority did not provide said information on the ground that such letter is not traceable. Therefore, petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority directed the respondent authority to supply necessary information. In spite of that, no information was supplied. Petitioner thereafter filed Second Appeal before the Information Commissioner, Gandhinagar. The said authority has also directed the respondent to provide the information asked for by the petitioner within stipulated time limit. However, no information is provided and therefore petitioner has preferred this petition in which the petitioner has sought for the direction that the information as directed in the first appeal and second appeal with regard to the accidental death of father of the petitioner be provided to him.
3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/12190/2017 ORDER Government Pleader has opposed this petition and referred the averments made in the affidavit-in- reply filed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vyara. It is submitted that the details sought for are not traceable and available. Therefore, inquiry was made by the concerned officer. Record was searched. However, the information is not available and therefore the same is not provided. It is further submitted that during the inquiry, it was revealed from record of 1981 and 1982 of Vyara Police Station that with regard to the accidental death no summary has been registered. It is specifically stated that petitioner was requested to visit the office of the respondent and verify the record by way of communication dated 07.01.2016. Thus, it is contended that when the letter dated 05.04.2004 addressed by Sub- Divisional Magistrate to the concerned District Magistrate is not available with the respondent authority, information is not supplied to the petitioner.
4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it is revealed that the petitioner asked for the information under the Right to Information Act, and more particularly, information with regard to the communication dated 05.04.2004 issued by the Sub-
Page 4 of 6 C/SCA/12190/2017 ORDERDivisional Magistrate to the District Magistrate. In the said communication, it was also asked that whether the accidental death summary is approved or not and which police station has asked for the summary. It is revealed from the record that the respondent authority has informed the petitioner that such details are not available. Further the Appellate Authorities have, though directed the respondent to provide the information asked for by the petitioner, from the record, it is clear that in spite of the effort of the respondent in searching the record, information as asked for by the petitioner is not available. Along with the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Sub- Divisional Magistrate, copy of the accidental death register of 1981 is produced on record. In the said register also, there is no mention about the name of the father of the petitioner and therefore there is no question of grant of summary of such accidental death. It is further revealed that the petitioner was asked to visit the office of the respondent and verify the record. However, it appears that petitioner has not gone to the said office and inspected the record.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that respondent authorities have Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/12190/2017 ORDER intentionally not provided the information asked for by the petitioner. When the record is not traceable, no fault can be found with the respondent authority. Thus, petition is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) Jani Page 6 of 6