Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Lal Gera vs State Information Commission & Ors on 16 October, 2014
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Civil Writ Petition No. 20192 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 20192 of 2014
Date of Decision: 16.10.2014
Krishan Lal Gera
....Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commission, Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Mr. R.S.Chahal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.
Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 29.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the first appellate authority and order 6.2.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana, 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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 is a habitual offender under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act' for short). He further submits that respondent No.3 is harassing the petitioner intentionally. A false criminal case was also lodged against the petitioner wherein he is facing criminal trial. He would next contend that when the petitioner was pursuing his application under RTI Act, complete information was not supplied to him forcing him to file his first appeal, whereupon the impugned order AMIT KUMAR 2014.10.27 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 20192 of 2014 2 dated 29.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) was passed. Since complete information was not supplied to the petitioner, he filed second appeal, which was decided vide impugned order dated 6.2.2013 (Annexure P-2). As the first appellate authority as well as second appellate authority failed to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, impugned orders were not sustainable in law. He concluded by submitting that no penal action was taken against respondent No.3, as directed by the State Information Commission. He prays for modification in the impugned orders to the extent the complete information has not been supplied to the petitioner.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, 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 whatever information was available in the official record, that had already been supplied to the petitioner. It is so recorded by the first appellate authority as well as second appellate authority, while passing their respective impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also fairly conceded this factual aspect of the matter that whatever information was available in the record, same had already been supplied to the petitioner. Having said that, this Court AMIT feels KUMAR no 2014.10.27 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 20192 of 2014 3 hesitation to conclude that petitioner is misusing the process of law, with a view to settle his personal score with respondent No.3.
Nobody can be permitted to misuse the process of law in the manner petitioner is trying. The impugned orders have been found to be based on correct appreciation of true facts and circumstances of the case and the same deserve to be upheld. Petitioner has repeatedly alleged in this writ petition that respondent No.3 was a habitual offender under RTI Act. Although serious malafide has been alleged against respondent No.3, yet he has not been impleaded by name, as party-respondent.
When a pointed question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why respondent No. 3 is not impleaded by name, he had no answer and rightly so, because it was a matter of record. Petitioner did not hesitate to allege serious malafide against the respondents, particularly respondent No.3 in the present case and wants him to be condemned unheard. Neither this is the scope of RTI Act, nor the petitioner can be permitted to misuse the process of law to settle his personal score. In this view of the matter, it can be safely concluded that present writ petition is nothing but a sheer misuse of process of law.
While passing the impugned order dated 29.10.2011, Commissioner of Police, i.e. first appellate authority under RTI Act, concluded his order as under:-
Conclusion: After hearing both the parties and from the facts of the case, following directions were issued:- AMIT KUMAR 2014.10.27 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 20192 of 2014 4
1. From the above mentioned facts, it is clear that required information/file containing requisite documents is unavailable in the office record. So information/documents cannot be supplied to the appellant.
2. Because concerned employee who is responsible for the maintenance of the file belongs to office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarter, Faridabad so direction is issued to the above mentioned officer to initiate departmental inquiry against him."
Despite knowing fully well that whatever information was available in the record, that had been supplied to him and the first appellate authority had already issued directions to initiate enquiry against the erring officer, petitioner still filed his second appeal before the State Information Commission. However, when the second appeal filed by the petitioner came up for final hearing on 6.2.2013, petitioner did not appear to press his appeal before the State Information Commission, Haryana, for the reasons best known to him.
A bare reading of the impugned order dated 6.2.2013 passed by the State Information Commission would show that whatever relief was claimed by the petitioner, it was granted even in his absence. Although the State Information Commission would have no jurisdiction to forward the request of the petitioner to the authorities concerned for taking action regarding alleged threat to his AMIT KUMAR 2014.10.27 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 20192 of 2014 5 life and liberty because separate efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner, yet the Commission forwarded even that request of the petitioner, while passing the impugned order.
The relevant part of the order dated 6.2.2013 (Annexure P-
2), reads as under;-
"The request of the appellant that he along with his family members are not safe shall also be forwarded to the public authority for taking action to avoid any harassment to the appellant on the ground that he is exercising his right to information. Further misplacement of police record is a serious matter that requires probe at the level of public authority and is required to be completed in a time bound manner. In the absence of the record, the information that was available to the record of the public authority stands furnished vide letter dated 31.5.2011, 28.7.2011 and 25.9.2012, thereafter Commission finds no need to continue the proceedings and hence disposes of the matter accordingly."
However, petitioner still did not feel satisfied. That is why instant writ petition, which is frivolous on the face of it, has been filed before this Court. Petitioner seems to be obsessed with his rights only and is showing total ignorance towards his duties. Further, petitioner is claiming himself to be above board in all respect, whereas he is not exercising even the minimum possible restraint on AMIT KUMAR 2014.10.27 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 20192 of 2014 6 himself, while levelling ill founded and serious allegations against respondent authorities. In his petition, he has said more than once that respondent No.3 is a habitual offender but he did not implead him by name, so that he may defend himself against allegations of malafide. In view of the abovesaid factual background, it is unhesitatingly held that petitioner is neither a bonafide litigant nor he had any cause of action to file and maintain instant writ petition, which amounts to blatant misuse of process of law and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
The abovesaid view taken by this Court for dismissing the 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 AMIT KUMAR 2014.10.27 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 20192 of 2014 7 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 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 AMIT KUMAR 2014.10.27 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 20192 of 2014 8 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."
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.
Consequently, instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs which are quantified at `30,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the Secretary, Haryana State Legal Services Authority Haryana, within three months from today.
Resultantly, instant writ petition stands dismissed with costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 16.10.2014 AK Sharma AMIT KUMAR 2014.10.27 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document