Karnataka High Court
K. Dhananjay vs Cabinet Secretary For The Honble ... on 26 November, 2021
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
WRIT PETITION No.11426 of 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
K. DHANANJAY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. LATE K. KRISHNAPPA,
HOUSE #48, 8TH CROSS,
12TH MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDERA BLOCK,
SRINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 050. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K. DHANANJAY, PARTY-IN-PERSON, THROUGH VC)
AND
1. CABINET SECRETARY FOR THE
HON,BLE PRESIDENT OF INDIA,
APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE OF THE CABINET,
CABINET SECRETARIAT,
RASHTRAPATI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 004.
2. SECRETARY FOR THE
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER,
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION,
CIC BHAWAN,
BABA GANGANATH MARG,
MUNIRKA,
NEW DELHI - 110 067.
3. MR. DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA,
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER,
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSISON,
CIC-BHAWAN, BABA GANGANATH MARG,
2
MUNIRKA,
NEW DELHI - 110 067.
4. SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
KARNATAKA STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
HALASURU POLICE STATION,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
5. MS. A. THOMEENA,
DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
1ST AND 2ND FLOOR,
SIR VISVESWARAYYA KENDRIYA BHAWANA,
NEXT TO C.P.W.D. QUARTERS,
DOMLUR,
BENGALURU - 560 039. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, CGSC., FOR R1, 2 & 5, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING;
SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP., FOR RESPONDENT 4, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING;
R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR. P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE
MALICIOUSLY INSTITUTED PERVERT CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
PENDING IN THE CASE FILE OF CRIME No.53806/2019 (NOW
C.C.No.50750/2020-ANNEXURE-J) IN THE X.A.C.M.M. COURT,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU, AS IT IS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND
IMPROPRIETY FOR THE PLURAL LEGAL GROUNDS URGED IN
PARAS No.(5.A.1.1. TO 5.A.1/3) OF THE WRIT PETITION IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIT APPLICABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS,
CITED IN PARA No.(5.B.1) OF THE WRIT PETITION AND
QUASH THE DECEPTIVELY PASSED QUASI-JUDICIAL-ORDER
ANNEXURE-F BY RESPONDENT No.3 AND FURTHER
DECEITFULLY ISSUED LETTERS VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND
ANNEXURE-Q ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.3 AS THESE ARE
UTTER FALSE, ILLEGAL, INVALID AND IMPROPRIETY FOR THE
LEGAL GROUND URGED IN PARAS No. (5.A.2.1 TO 5.A.2.3) OF
THE WRIT PETITION IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIT AND
3
APPLICABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS CITED IN PARA Nos.(5.B.2.1
TO 5.B.2.2.) OF THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.10.2021 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner appearing as party-in-person has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant the following reliefs:
"8.1) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash a maliciously instituted pervert criminal proceedings pending in the case file of Crime No.53806/2019 (now C.C.No.50750/2020 - Annex.J) in the X A.C.M.M. Court, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, as it is illegal, invalid and impropriety for the plural legal grounds urged in Paras Nos.(5.A.1.1 to 5.A.1.3) of the W.P. in compliance with the fit applicable legal provisions, cited in Para No.(5.B.1) of the W.P.;
(8.2) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the deceptively passed Quasi-Judicial Order No.CIC/CADMT/A/2018/611756/SD 4 (Annex.F) by respondent No.3 and further deceitfully issued letters vide Annex-L and Annex-Q on behalf of respondent No.3, as these are utter false, illegal, invalid & impropriety for the legal ground urged in Paras Nos.(5.A.2.1 to 5.A.2.3) of the W.P. in compliance with the fit and applicable legal provisions, cited in Paras Nos.(5.B.2.1 to
5.B.2.2) of the W.P.;
(8.3) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus for directions to respondent No.2 for urgently to discharge his official-in-charge-duty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to ensure petitioner ascertains & secures his sought information (documents) for Sl.No.2 & 3 in Annexure-A satisfactorily as per the legal grounds urged in Para Nos.(5.A.3.1 to 5.A.3.4) of the W.P. in compliance with the fit and applicable legal provisions, cited in Paras Nos. (5.B.3) of the W.P.;
8.4) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus for directors to respondent No.2 for urgently to discharge his official-in-charge-duty under Section21 of the RTI Act, 2005 to file a duly 5 sworn Affidavit in case file C.R.No.53806/2019 (Annex-J) to prevent the travesty of justice as per the legal ground urged in Para No.(5.A.4) of the W.P. in compliance with the applicable legal provisions, cited in Para No.(5.B.4) of the W.P.;
8.5) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus for directions to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to initiate Disciplinary Action on respondent No.3 for the legal grounds urged in Paras Nos. (5.A.5.1 to 5.A.5.3) of the W.P. in compliance with the fit and applicable legal provisions, cited in Para No.(5.B.5) of the W.P.;
8.6) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus for directions to respondents No.1 & 2 to accord the sanction order to petitioner under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting the respondent No.3 as Accused No.4 in P.C.R. No.55937/2019 (Annex-F) for the legal grounds urged in Para Nos. (5.A.6.1 to 5.A.6.2) of the W.P. in compliance with the fit and applicable legal provisions, cited in Para No.(5.B.6.1 to 5.B.6.5) of the W.P.; and 6 (8.7) Pass any other orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of Justice and Equity."
2. The case of the petitioner, party-in-person, is that he was an upright and meritorious Central Government Servant served for 15 years and he was the only whistle blower in the whole of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics (Autonomous Institute under Department of Science and Technology, Government of India) to file cases on Rs.2,000/- crore cheating and misappropriation of the public funds jointly by the Management and staff of the said Institute. The list of civil and criminal cases are as follows;
i) O.A.No.21/2011 (W.P.No.38412/2012 (S-CAT)
ii) O.A.No.1565/2015 (W.P.No.26063/2018(S-CAT) iii) O.A.No.13/2016 iv) O.A.No.590/2016 v) O.A.No.929/2016 vi) O.A.No.521/2017 7
vii) F.I.R. No.8204/2018 (P.C.R. No.8204/2018)
viii) P.C.R. No.14364/2017)
ix) Lokpal complaint etc., Apart from civil and criminal cases which were pending for final disposal, some of the cases have become infructuous due to inordinate delay. He has alleged that one Dr. P.Sreekumar, an Ex-Director of the said institute took advantage of his Malayalee Nayar community related to the Presiding Officer of a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench, Dr. K.B. Suresh for colluding with him for the purpose of jointly co-operating with each other to hatch criminal conspiracy for dismissing the impeccable charactered petitioner from the government service as a remedy to permanently obliterate the aforesaid whistle blowing acts and more importantly to safeguard himself from criminal prosecution in the aforesaid scam cases (being the prime accused in scam). For this very purpose, Dr. P.Sreekumar had used one Ms.C.R. Sangeetha as Honey Trap woman to Dr. K.B.Suresh for committing a 8 CASE_FIXED_DEAL_CRIME for passing a CASE_FIX_DEALT_ORDER in petitioner's case O.A.No.170/0982/2015. On enjoying the Honey Trap woman, Dr. K.B.Suresh criminally heard the Out_of_Court advises as his observations, contents and finding of fact in the case. Dr. P.Sreekumar and Ms.C.R. Sangeetha and others on the other hand gravely and heinously defaming and irreparably injured the impeccable character of the petitioners' conduct, career and service with utterly criminally motivated remarks. Consequently, Dr. P.Sreekumar used the CASE FIXED DEALT ORDER as a vital documentary evidence to prosecute the petitioner to an utterly false disciplinary case to charge sheet him. Later, in the inquiry, he prevented petitioner to fairly cross-examine the Management witnesses to unearth the truth on the CASE FIXING DEAL CRIME and he abruptly stopped the inquiry. Thus, without completing inquiry and without inquiry report, Dr. P.Sreekumar, dictatorially awarded petitioner with capital punishment for government service (dismissal from Government service). Without 9 delay, the petitioner filed criminal case in PCR. No.14364/2017 in IV ACMM Court on this matter, but Dr. K.B.Suresh has been recklessly interfering to influence, prejudice and pressurize every Magistrate of IV ACMM Court to dismiss this case without a trial on accused. Thus, Dr.K.B.Suresh has been criminally destroying each and every police/criminal cases in which his involvement is to be probed. On the other hand, he has been routinely implicating the petitioner into one or the other false cases by influencing the Police/Magistrate to convict and sentence petitioner to imprison and endanger petitioner's life and liberty. Hence, the writ petition is filed for reliefs.
3. The petitioner further contended that grave defamatory remarks, contents, observations and findings passed by Dr. P.Sreekumar in order to dismiss petitioner from his Government service has barred petitioner from his chances for re-employment in at-least Private sectors also. Thus, due to unemployment, petitioner's dependents are also thrown on streets starving for their lives, liberties 10 and fraternities and embattling for access to justice. Thus, for discharging a fundamental duty as a citizen of India for protecting the public property (public funds), petitioner's entire family has been targeted, victimized and irreparably injured. The petitioner is already a victim suffering irreparable injuries at their hands. Further by implicating him in false cases to lock him in jail to evade their crimes, they are jeopardizing the life of petitioner. Further contended that to prevent investigation on his involvement, Dr. K.B.Suresh has been recklessly abusing his vested powers and authorities and machineries and his henchmen staff of CAT to mislead and to successfully influence, prejudice and pressurize various Judges of various Courts to pass their orders to conceal his crimes, the Judges of the High Court of Karnataka in WP No.51917/2016 (S-CAT) and RP No.54/2017, the Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.9362- 9363/2019 and RP(C) No.1036-1037/2019 and Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the Transfer Petitions vide P.T.Nos.241/2017 & 242/2017. He has 11 been recklessly making his best criminal efforts to influence the Police Authorities and every Magistrates of IV ACMM Court and X ACMM Court for dismissing the cases without investigation and trial on accused while he recklessly made his best criminal efforts to influence the Advocate General to grant sanction to initiate criminal contempt on him for filing complaint to Hon'ble President of India on CASE_FIXING_DEAL_CRIME and for this purpose he used M/s. Sundaraswamy & Ramdas Advocates as his private lawyers at the expense of Indian Institute of Astrophysics to file two criminal contempt cases. Further, recklessly influencing the Police Authorities and Magistrates of X ACMM Court, Mayohall Unit for successfully charge sheeting, convicting and sentencing the petitioner in CC No.50750/2020. The petitioner further alleges that Dr. K.B. Suresh through his henchmen (CAT staff and Ms. C.R. Sangeetha) has been secretly poaching concerned Court's Bench Clerks/Court Officers, Scrutiny staff for the sake of espionage/informers on petitioner's each and every freshly filed cases for compelling them to 12 some how create unwarranted scrutiny objections etc. to dismiss the cases at scrutiny stage itself. If scrutiny is cleared and passed, then they prey on peititoner's advocates by secretly poaching, prejudicing and controlling more than 17 numbers of Fee paid Lawyers of petitioners who were on case records for petitioner's cases to use them as their spies/informers for ascertaining complete case documents for successfully motivating them to be absent themselves for courts for their arguments so that Judges dismiss the cases and to breach petitioner's interest by creating unwarranted conflicts with him to obliterate with him. Under such critical situation and circumstance only without any other remedy, petitioner has been compellingly contesting all of his still pending cases as party-in-person. He further alleges that more seriously they are preying on Judges to get their goals fulfilled. Dr. K.B. suresh is such a predator to prey on all upright Judges, Police, Court Staff, Advocate General, Government Functionaries, petitioner's advocates, presently respondent No.3 to entrap them to his 13 enticement to successfully fulfill his criminal goals. The Honey Trap woman is the root cause who transformed Dr.K.B.Suresh to such a notorious offender. He further alleges that respondent No.3 has joined Dr. K.B. Suresh to abet his committed crimes on petitioner. Despite perpetrating all these hard core crimes, he is enjoying his life to his best without even a trivial inquiry or investigation or action. He also contended that the Court shall take suo motu cognizance of the crimes for ordering SIT to probe on Dr. K.B. Suresh's offences.
4. The petitioner has further contended that he has absolute fundamental right to seek justice and filed WP No.49540/2018 (GM-RES) praying to nominate a retired justice to chair Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ascertain all evidences through the assistance of Police/CBI to probe a National Shame based grave CASE_FIXING_DEAL_CRIME committed by Dr. K.B.Suresh with Ms. C.R. Sangeetha and Dr. P. Sreekumar to submit probe report for strictest criminal and disciplinary actions 14 on culprits, which case is still pending for final hearing. To convince the Court for passing orders for setting up of the SIT, petitioner ought to file substantiating evidences to justify his allegations. To ascertain one small piece of evidence out of several evidences, only the petitioner had filed an RTI-Application (Annexure-A) to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), but such a piece of evidence was intentionally denied for furnishing because evidence justifies the CASE_FIXING_DEAL_CRIME. He further contended that the substance and contention of each Annexure is briefly averred in the List of Events (Dates) in reference to the Index of writ petition, which information has been satisfactorily furnished by CPIO-CAT in reference to petitioner's RTI Act application (Annexure-A). The information at Sl.No.1 in Annexure-A has been furnished satisfactorily which information (documents) is not furnished by CPIO-CAT in reference to petitioner's RTI Act Application. The information at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 is a vital evidence for proving the CASE_FIXING_DEAL_CRIME 15 needed for W.P.No.49450/2018 (GM-RES). A Fraudulent maneuver is adopted by CPIO-CAT to conceal or not to furnish the sought information for Sl.No.2 in Annexure-A. Respondent No.5 claims that furnishing information for Sl.No.1 in Annexure-A itself is information for Sl.No.2 also, which is false. The CPIO-CAT furnished document which is not for Sl.No.2. One independent Ledger/Register Book is maintained in each of the three branches for inventory records purpose for movement of case files from one Branch to another for tracing, tracking and locating the case files. As and when a case file has been moved from one Branch to another, a concerned staff, writes in serial order the date, case number, party name etc. and adjoiningly puts his/her initial (signature). This is a trite law procedure. The CPIO-CAT is not justified in furnishing the documents probably belongs to Judiciary-2, but not to Administration Branch. The CPIO CAT furnished the document (Annexure-B) dated 24.06.2016. The name of the petitioner mentioned below in O.A.No.170/0982/2015 and respective names and addresses of respondents are 16 written from Sl.Nos.85 to 97 (total 13 entries for 13 respondents) in serial order by one Mr. Basappa, concerned staff of Judiciary-2 Branch, with his signature and date and has forwarded respondent, copies of case files along with cause-title sheets from Judiciary-2 Branch to Administration Branch on 24.06.2016 (Friday) at around 4 p.m. The concerned staff of Administration Branch though received the same on 24.06.2016, but signed the receipt in Ledger book only on 27.06.2016 (Monday). Section Officer of the Judiciary-2 Branch, Mr. T. Srinivasa has confirmed that Administration Branch has received documents on 27.06.2016 and hence, he signed with date 27.06.2016 vertically on the left margin of the Ledger book to indicate that the case documents are pending in Administration Branch as on 27.06.2016. Both Mr. T.Srinivasa and Mr. Basappa belong to Judiciary-2 but not Administration Branch as on that date, since concerned staff of Administration Branch did not write case details, signature with by Ordinary Post, etc on 27.06.2016 in Annexure-B, but the Ledger book is entirely different which 17 CPIO CAT has been concealing from petitioner's inspection till date. So that CPIO CAT furnished document (Annexure-B) belong to judiciary-2 Branch. Thus furnished information is for Sl.No.1 but not for Sl.No.2. The cause of action for filing the first appeal (Annexure-C) and second appeal (Annexure-D) under RTI Act for non-furnishing of sought information is at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 of his RTI Act Application (Annexure-A). Sl.No.2 is incriminatory evidence.
5. The petitioner has further alleged the hidden criminal motives of CPIO-CAT (A.Thomeena) for not furnishing documents sought by the petitioner in Sl.NO.2 in annexure-A. That on 27.06.2016, the Administration Branch of CAT dispatched case (O.A.No.170/0982/2015) documents by ordinary post. Shockingly, on the same date, the Ledger book of Receipt Section of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics (Respondents) also made entries to claim, they received the same by post on 27.06.2016 itself. Even Post Master General of India also knows that 18 Ordinary Post will never deliver to the recipient address on the same day. The evidence is one of several evidences which proves that Dr. K.B. Suresh of CAT and Dr. P. Sreekumar of Indian Institute of Astrophysics jointly committed CASE_FIXING_DEAL CRIME for passing a CASE_FIX_DEALT_ORDER and for concealing such crime, they have been recklessly fabricating, tampering, forging various court documents, court orders etc. to prevent investigation on them and to injure innocent petitioner since the petitioner has averred all these facts in WP No.49540/2018 (GM-RES), Crl.CCC.No.7/2018 and WP No.50205/2019 (GM-RES-PIL) and entire copies of these case files are served to Mr. T. Srinivasa, A Thomeena etc., Hence, they are aware of every bit of sensitive matters on Case_Fixing_Deal_Crime. Hence, to prevent that SIT- Probe on them, as per the instructions of Dr. K.B.Suresh, the CPIO-CAT (A.Thomeena) did not furnish petitioner's sought information (document) in Sl.No.2 of Annexure-A. He further alleges that the findings of Respondent No.3 twist in Annexure-F to that of an oral order. During Video 19 Conference hearing, the petitioner argued as stated in para No.4.14. Accordingly, three times, Respondent No.3 repeatedly ordered to CPIO-CAT to provide opportunity to petitioner for his inspection of Ledger Book referred in Sl.No.2 of Annexure-A. Accordingly, CPIO-CAT to furnish certified copies of extracts of selected pages by collecting applicable page charges. Consequent to the oral order, Dr.K.B.Suresh intensely influenced Respondent No.3 to fix him to smartly twist his oral order. Accordingly, as per the advise of Dr. K.B.Suresh, Respondent No.3 passed his order (Annexure-F) to observe CPIO-CAT already furnished information (document) for Sl.No.2. Thus, the order is pervert and illegal which needs to be quashed. Later, petitioner through his complaint disputed this twisting of oral order and pleaded for amending his order. But Respondent No. 3 did not oblige it. Later, petitioner submitted his reminder-cum-notice, still no action taken by Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 outrightly denied to furnish any information. This act of Respondent No.3 proves that he colluded with CPIO-CAT to pass pervert and 20 illegal order. He further alleged that to fulfill criminal goals, the CPIO-CAT filed a false complaint in CIR No.228/2019 now pending in CC No.50705/2020. He has sought information at Sl.No.2 in Annexure-A as per her promise, but she harassed petitioner to such an extent that she and her henchmen jointly abused and attacked him shouting Respondent No.3 has not passed an order for furnishing documents for Sl.No.2 and then the CPIO-CAT started blackmailing the petitioner that if he does not collect the documents and write his note stating "he inspected documents and obtained satisfactory information" for filing the compliance report to Respondent No.3 for closing the case, then, she lodges a police complaint on him. The petitioner suspecting that the Administration Branch might have been tampered/fabricated/forged by now, to exhaust remedy from Respondent No. 3 for non-compliance of Annexure-F and soon after release from jail on bail, the petitioner submitted a complaint to Respondent No.3 for initiating action under Sections 20 and 21 of the RTI Act, 2005. Respondent No.3 promptly issued a letter to the 21 CPIO-CAT seeking explanation for non-compliance of Annexure-F to Respondent 3, but no further action is taken till date. The said Dr. K.B.Suresh and his henchmen perpetrate on petitioner consequent to his judicial custody ordered by the Magistrate despite actual crime being committed by the CPIO-CAT and others on the petitioner, still by abusing their power and authority, and by influencing Mr. M.Diwakar, Station House Officer, filed a twisted and false complaint on petitioner and registered FIR No.228/2019 against him. The petitioner got arrested and sent to judicial custody. This news publicized to defame the impeccable character and dignity of the petitioner. The petitioner yet to be served with the charge sheet. More serious is Dr. K.B.Suresh and his henchmen CPIO-CAT, Mr. T.Srinivasa motivated Mr.M.Diwakar to enter the official chamber of the Magistrate of the X ACMM Court for influencing the Magistrate to convict and sentence the petitioner, the petitioner was also present in the Court hall waiting for commencement of open court for attending the proceedings. The modus operandi of 22 Dr.K.B.Suresh is routinely taking place and Respondent No.3 is the latest prey who got entrapped to Dr. K.B.Suresh. Hence, he has filed this petition.
6. The petitioner further alleged that the Station House Officer of the Police Station was part and parcel of the crime. Hence, the petitioner filed the complaint to the Assistant Police Commissioner who was superior, but no action has been taken. Further he also filed to the Commissioner of Police and then to Director General of Police. No action has been taken. Hence, he filed PCR No.55937/2019 before the X ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, to secure sanction order under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the case for investigation for the alleged crime. It is not the petitioner, but the Investigating Officer to secure the sanction order, but still the petitioner submitted application before the competent authority. Till date, no reply. The case is not proceeded further. Thus, Dr. K.B.Suresh has been influencing the competent authorities not to grant any sanction to 23 prosecute against him. The accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 116, 119, 120B, 166, 167, 182, 191, 192, 195, 196, 203, 204, 209, 211, 217, 323, 336, 342, 500 and 504 of IPC.
7. The petitioner further alleges that prior to production of petitioner before the Magistrate in the Halasuru Police Station, the SHO Mr. M. Diwakar voluntarily shown written complaint of Ms. A Thomeena to petitioner and deceptively instructed him to record his version of defense statement for complaint which shall be filed along with FIR No.228/2019 in the Court. The petitioner read the contents of the complaint which plainly alleged that petitioner shouted at Ms. A.Thomeena for not providing him an opportunity for his inspection of document, so that the Police can take action. Accordingly, the petitioner recorded his statement. Then he was taken to Court and produced before the X ACMM and remanded to judicial custody. The present copy of the complaint is not the original complaint filed by Ms. Thomeena. The 24 petitioner further alleges that as per the legal provisions, there is a specially expressed legal bar engrafted in respect of Section 21 of the RTI Act. The petitioner enjoys immunity from being prosecuted. Therefore, Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable and he is entitled for the relief. He further alleges that on bare perusal and examination of all the allegations made by Ms.A.Thomeena on the petitioner in her complaint is a verbal altercation between the petitioner and Thomeena and that it is actually the petitioner was to discharge his obligatory duty for his Inspection of documents as per quasi-judicial order, but the said Thomeena was assaulted, prevented and obstructed to serve her vested criminal interest and she dictatorially denied to furnish the sought information. Further, she and her co-staff attacked the petitioner using foul and filthy language, but they twisted and filed false complaint against the petitioner. The averments made in the complaint does not state any offence under Sections 353 and 506 of IPC. He further contended that continuing the proceedings against the 25 petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law and therefore, prayed for allowing the petition and sought various reliefs.
8. Smt. Anupama Hegde, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appears for respondent No.4.
Respondent No.3 is served and unrepresented.
9. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 filed written objections contending that the prayer sought by the petitioner is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the petitioner filed the application on 04.12.2017 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bangalore under RTI Act, 2005 seeking certain information. The said documents were furnished to the petitioner on 18.12.2017 with reference to query Nos.1 and 2, copies of the Dispatch Register, Book extracts of Admin and Judicial. 26 However, query No.3, an endorsement was given stating that since the same are court proceedings, the documents sought for by the petitioner cannot be supplied in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He has filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority and sought for supply of document at query No.3 and the Central Information Commission passed the order dated 09.02.2018. Based upon that order, the petitioner was informed to attend the office on 24.07.2019. Accordingly he was allowed to inspect the document and later he has stated saying that even though the CIC has recorded that he has sought a copy of CAT- Judiciary Section-II, Dispatch Register Book Extract and related documents with respect to suo motu proceeding No.1/2017, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the appropriate reply has been provided by CPIO in respect of query No.2 of the RTI application dated 04.12.2017. Hearing this, the petitioner started shouting and threatening at the APIO and CPIO that there is lot of criminal activities and fabrications going on and that he will throw the copies of the documents mentioned in para 27 3 to the dustbin and the petitioner went on saying/repeating in high voice that officers have colluded and done many criminal activities. Therefore, the complaint came to be lodged in Halasuru Police. It is further stated that the incident has been reported to CIC vide report dated 30.07.2019 and the petitioner also complained before the CIC through his application dated 24.07.2019. The respondent No.5-CIC, on 12.09.2019, has replied to the complaint of the petitioner dated 09.09.2019. It is further contended that the allegations made in paragraph No.4.3 that inordinate delay was caused deliberately in deciding cases and goals of all offenders of in famous CASE_FIX_DEAL_CRIME are false and baseless and at the request of the petitioner remaining, pending cases are transferred to the Principal Bench, New Delhi. The respondent has given the list of cases and further contended that the allegation made by the petitioner against the office of respondent No.5 in paragraph Nos.4.4 to 4.8 are false and baseless. The allegations in paragraph Nos.5A, 6, 7, 8, 9 in the petition 28 against the CPIO-Ms. A. Thomeena are false and baseless. All contentions raised by the petitioner specially perverse and denied as false. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
10. Having heard the arguments of the petitioner, party-in-person, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, though the petitioner stated lengthy pleadings and various allegations in respect of his case, the sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was a dismissed employee from the Indian Institute of Astrophysics and he has filed a case against the employer in O.A.No.170/0982/2015 before the CAT, Bengaluru by challenging his dismissal. The said case came to be dismissed and the office of the CAT is said to have dispatched the case file by ordinary post on 27.06.2016 in the evening at 4.00 p.m., but the employer of his office said to have received the post on the same date on 27.06.2016 itself. Therefore, he contends that there is something wrong in dispatching the said case file 29 through post. If the said file is sent by ordinary post in the evening on 27.06.2016, it cannot be received by his employer on the same day.
Therefore, he found some foul play in the office of the CAT. Hence, he filed an application under the RTI Act seeking three information i.e. the order as well as the Dispatching Registrar Extracts. The CPIO-Respondent No.5 is said to be the information officer who has partly allowed the application and rejected the information sought by him in Sl.No.3. Therefore, he has filed an appeal before the Respondent No. 3 - Central Information Commission (CIC) and during his arguments, he alleges that, the CIC informed orally to allow the petitioner to inspect the documents and while passing the order, Respondent No. 3 herein passed the order by allowing the petitioner to inspect the documents and directing the CPIO to supply information sought by him, but to his surprise, he found in the impugned order of Respondent No.3 directed the CPIO to provide an opportunity to the 30 appellant to inspect relevant and available records at paragraph 3 of RTI application except the affidavit dated 20.11.2017 sought at sub-para-F of RTI application. As per the direction of CIC, the CPIO-Respondent No.5 issued notice on 18.07.2019 calling upon him to come and inspect the documents on 24.07.2019
11. It is alleged further that when he appeared on 24.07.2019, Respondent No.5 and his officers have not shown the documents for inspection, and they refused to allow the petitioner to verify those documents. At that time, there was some quarrel between Respondent No.5 and the petitioner. The petitioner agitated for inspecting the documents as per the direction of CIC, but they have not allowed. For that, Respondent No. 5 filed a complaint against him before the Police for the offence under Section 353 of IPC and he was taken to custody. Later, he was released on bail. His contention is that the order passed by Respondent No. 3 is not in accordance with law and there is collusion between Respondent No.5 and 31 Respondent No. 3. The have made false complaint against him and kept him in jail. Therefore, he filed a private complaint before the Magistrate in PCR No.55937/2019 and in order to proceed against them, the Magistrate insisted prior sanction. Therefore, he has approached Respondent No.2 for sanction to proceed against Respondent No.3. It was denied. Therefore, he has filed this petition directing respondent No.2 to accord sanction to proceed against respondent No.3 and Respondent No.5 and he has also challenged the proceedings initiated against him before Halasuru Police on the complaint filed by Respondent No.5.
12. The petitioner party-in-person has relied upon various judgments and contended that when he acted for getting the information sought in the application under the RTI Act as directed by CIC, Respondent No.5 denied the same. Therefore, he requested Respondent No.5 to provide the said information, but they filed false complaint against him. Therefore, continuing proceedings against him is abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for 32 quashing the criminal proceedings against him. He also contended that there is protection under Section 21 of the RTI Act and no prosecution can be launched against the applicant. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon a Single Bench decision of the Kerala High Court.
13. Per contra, learned Central Government Standing Counsel has opposed the petition and contended that protection under Section 21 of RTI Act is to the officials, but not to the applicants and the allegation made by the petitioner are all false. The petitioner has not filed any application before Respondent No.2 seeking any direction for granting sanction and such being the case, the question of directing issue of writ of mandamus does not arise and in the application filed for he has not sought any relief of granting sanction against Respondent No.5. Such being the case, this Court cannot direct the authorities to consider any application. In support of her arguments, she also relied upon several judgments. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 33
14. On considering the prayer made by the petitioner, it is seen that when he has agitated for his right of inspection of the records as per the order of the CIC, Respondent No.5 filed a false complaint calling upon the Ulsoor police to register a case against the petitioner falsely implicating him in the criminal case. He has also alleged that by misusing the power, manipulating the documents, manhandling him, defaming his prestige, he has filed a private complaint against the petitioner. He was detained in jail and thereafter, released on bail. In view of the provisions of the RTI Act, a remedy is available to the petitioner and no prosecution can be launched. Therefore, the petitioner alleges that the criminal proceeding pending against him is required to be quashed.
15. The same is seriously objected by the respondents' counsel.
34
16. Before going into the merits of the allegation as against the petitioner, it is worth to mention the provision under Section 21 of the RTI Act, which reads as under:
"Section 21 of RTI Act 2005 "Protection of action taken in good faith"
No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule made there under."
17. In view of Section 21 of the RTI Act, there is a protection available to a person and no prosecution or other legal proceedings can be launched, if anything which is done in good faith or intended to be done under the Act and the Rules.
18. The learned Counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that the immunity and the protection is available only to the officers or officials who have acted under the RTI Act and act done in good faith 35 and such protection is not available to the applicant- petitioner, who is the party-in-person.
19. In this regard, the petitioner - party-in-person has relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in W.P (C) No.13528/2015 decided on 03.08.2015 (Amrutha M. George Vs. Spices Board and others). After considering the various judgments in the aforesaid judgment, the Kerala High Court, at para 14, has held as under:
14. In the instant case, the stage at which the charge memo was issued namely, when the petitioner was collecting data to test the veracity of her apprehensions, and the tenor of the averments in the charge memo, and the memo that preceded it, that clearly indicate that the respondents have commenced the proceedings with a closed mind, lead me to believe that the petitioner cannot expect a fair treatment in the proceedings that are now initiated against the respondent That apart, I also find force in the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that Section 36 21 of the RTI Act affords a protection to an applicant who prefers an application in terms of the Act. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the said provision offers immunity from legal proceedings only to officers exercising powers under the Act does not appeal to me as convincing since the express provisions of Section 21 of the RTI Act do not admit of any such restricted interpretation to be placed on the provisions.
20. In the aforesaid judgment, the Kerala High Court has held that the protection is available also to the applicant and in order to get the protection and immunity from prosecution, the act is to be done in good faith by the applicant or an officer/officials under the RTI Act.
21. On perusal of the grounds urged in the case and the documents produced by the petitioner, it reveals that as per Annexure-A, on 4.12.2017, the petitioner filed an application under RTI Act for supply of documents as under:
37
1. Supply CAT-Judiciary section-II-Despatch Register Book Extract-showing entries of O.A.No.982/2015-Respondent copies despatched from judiciary-ii to CAT-Admin (Tapal) Section.
2. Supply CAT-Admin. (TAPAL) Despatch Register Book Extract-showing entries of O.A.No.982/2015
- Respondent Copies despatched by ORDINARY POST on 27.06.2016 from CAT-Admin (TAPAL) Section.
[*] [NOTE: I NEED ALL CERTIFIED COPIES FOR COURT SAKE]
3. Supply following Documents w.respondent t. Suo-
Motu ProceedingNo.1/2017 in O.A.No.13/2016:-
(A) Statement of K. Dhananjay in O.A.No.13/2016 and O.A.No.929/2016 during hearing on 01/11/2017 (B) K. Dhananjay's objections to certain wrongly recorded statement by Hon'ble Dr. K.B.Suresh on 01.11.2017, dated 08/11/2017 (C) Voluntary Statement, dated 08/11/2017 of K.Dhananjay (D) Memo & Affidavit of Dr. P.Kumaresan, dated 08//11/2017 (E) Order-sheet SMP No.01/2017, dated 08/11/2017 (F) Affidavit of K. Dhananjay, dated 20/11/2017 (G) Memo & Affidavit of Dr. Sunetra Giridhar dated 10/11/2017 (H) Memo & Affidavit of Dr. P. Sreekumar (Director), dated 10/11/2017 (I) Statement, Dt: 13/11/2017 by Advocate Sri.V.V. Balan (J) Memo, Dt: 04/12/2017 filed by K. Dhananjay in Suo-Moto Proceeding No.01/2017
22. Pursuant to this application, one Sudheer, the Deputy Registrar furnished the information on 18.12.2017 38 stating that in respect to query No.1 and 2 copies of dispatch register and book, extracts of administration under judicial are all furnished and, in respect of query No.3, he has stated that as the documents are court proceedings, the same cannot be supplied in terms of section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. In view of non furnishing of information No.3 sought by the petitioner, he has preferred an appeal before Dr. K.B. Suresh, who is Appellate Authority and Member (J), HOD, CAT, on 23.3.2017 stating that he cannot file appeal before Dr.K.B.Suresh as the information sought against him the authority and the first appellate authority are one and the same. Therefore, he has filed an appeal to the Central Information Commission as second appeal under section 19(3) of RTI Act. After the receipt of the appeal memo, the CIC sent the hearing notice to the petitioner on 22.05.2019.
23. Accordingly, after the arguments, the CIC passed an order directing the CPIO to allow the petitioner to 39 inspect the available records sought in para 3 of the RTI application except the affidavit dated 20.11.2017 and further stated that the copy of documents if desired by the applicant will be provided free of cost up to 25 pages and beyond that he has to pay the charges. Based upon the said direction, the petitioner has been summoned by Respondent No.5 CPIO by a letter on 18.07.2019 calling to inspect the documents on 24.07.2019. There was some disturbances as the petitioner was said to have misbehaved with the CPIO and he was said to have used criminal force on them. The petitioner also sent a complaint to the CIC on the same date i.e., on 24.07.2019 stating that the CPIO has not given him an opportunity for inspection of documents at Tappal section and the dispatch registers. His contention was that the dispatch section is maintaining a register, book and there are entries in respect of case OA 982/2015. It was sent on 27.06.2016, but it was wrongly mentioned as it was sent on 24.06.2016 and he has suspected that the dispatch register has been manipulated and concocted by showing 40 the date as 24.6.2016 even though it was dispatched only on 27.6.2016. The respondent stated that the dispatch register clearly reveals the cases mentioned and the register as 24.6.2016 and on 27.6.2016, the supervisor of the office verified and endorsed as 27.6.2016 and it is contended that the petitioner misconceived the endorsement and stated as the dispatch was only on 27.6.2016 but not on 24.6.2016. But the petitioner says that he has physically seen when the file was dispatched by an order pot only on the evening of 27.6.2016 and he agitate that if the same file has been posted by an ordinary post on 27.6.2016 at 4.00 p.m. and it is not possible to receive by his office i.e. employer on the same day on 27.6.2016. The copy of the dispatch register is produced by the petitioner which reveals that the register depicts from 20.6.2016 says Sl. No.79 to 84 has been dispatched and on the left side margin it was signed by some official on 20.6.2016 and below the said entry sl.
No.84, there is a date shown as 24.6.2016 Sl. Nos.85 and 86 were mentioned and on the back side again the same 41 date is mentioned was 24.6.2016 and Sl. Nos.87 to 97 are also mentioned and on the left side margin column, it was mentioned one person signed by affixing the date as 27.6.2016.
24. The respondents' counsel submits that the endorsement was made by the supervisor for confirming the dispatch of the letters by an ordinary post and it was dispatched on 24.6.2016 itself and there was no manipulation. The copy of the entries in the dispatch register has been produced by the petitioner which reveals that there is a date as 24.6.2016 at Sl. Nos.85 to 96 has been mentioned and on the right side column, it was shown as ordinary and on the left side column was endorsed by one person by affixing the date as 27.6.2016. The information sought by petitioner in Sl No.1 and 2 has been furnished by the CPIO. But no copy was furnished as sought in Sl. No.3 and the CIC directed to issue the information in the appeal. While inspecting the said register the petitioner is said to have manhandled the 42 CPIO. Therefore, Respondent No.5 called the police and lodged the complaint which is registered in criminal case against the petitioner and he was taken to custody and remanded to judicial custody and later, he was released on bail.
25. Now, the question arises before this Court is whether the act done by the petitioner is in good faith, which is exempted from prosecution or the protection is available to the petitioner under section 21 of the RTI Act.
26. Perusal of the complaint given by respondent No.5 against the petitioner reveals that the petitioner was called to the office as per the order of the CIC and he was asked to inspect the documents which he wants. But the petitioner wanted to inspect some other document for which respondent No.5 refused stating that it was an official document. Therefore, refuse the say that the petitioner started shouting and threatening them at that time, one Smt. Rajashree CPIO, Smt. Rekhashree who is 43 her Personal Secretary and Smt. Geetha were in the room. The petitioner said to have threatened and shouted at them and disrupted the work of office. Due to shout and cries, the people around gathered. Therefore, Respondent No. 5 sought an action against the petitioner and by telephonic call, the police arrived at the spot and the petitioner was said to be apprehended by the police and after registering the case, he has been sent to judicial remand. The police investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner. The investigation report reveals that the petitioner has quarreled with the officials and has stated that the manipulation of documents is going on and he will dump the documents in a dustbin and he will teach a lesson and he threatened C.W.1 and 2 and obstructed them from discharging the official duty which amounts to criminal force on the public servant.
27. Perusal of these records further reveal that Respondent No.5 had summoned the petitioner for inspection of the documents as per the order of the CIC. 44 But the petitioner wanted to inspect some other document which was not permitted him by the CIC. when the same was refused, he has quarreled with the officials of CAT. The contention of the petitioner cannot be acceptable that a false case has been lodged by Respondent No.5 in collusion with the presiding officer of CAT. If at all the respondent has refused to allow him to inspect, he should have complained to the CIC. Even he also wrote a letter to the CIC on the same day. But he could not have quarrelled with the officials of CAT and threatened them stating that he would teach the lesson. It is nothing but an obstructing the public servant and criminal force on the public servant while discharging their official duty. It amounts to an offence under Section 353 of IPC.
28. The main allegation made by the petitioner against the CAT Member Dr. K.B. Suresh and respondent No.5 is that the Chairman of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics is a Keralite person and Dr. K.B. Suresh is also a Keralite and respondent No.5 is also a Keralite and 45 therefore, he suspects that the Chairman of the Institute and Dr. K.B. Suresh have colluded with each other and got dismissed his case in O.A. No.170/0982/2015 which application was filed by him against his dismissal from service. The petitioner further alleges that the order of dismissal and the file has been dispatched only on 27.06.2016 at 4.00 p.m. by an ordinary post, but his Institute has received the said case file on 27.6.2016 itself and it is not possible to receive the ordinary post within a day and he suspects that there is manipulation and fabrication in the dispatch register maintained by the CAT office and therefore, he has filed an application under the RTI Act seeking a copy of the dispatch extract, which was given by the CPIO. Even if it is issued to the petitioner, again, he suspects and alleges that he himself physically saw the official carrying the post and dropped it in the post box on 27.06.2016 and also alleges tat Dr. K.B. Suresh has intentionally dismissed his application filed against challenging the termination of his service by the Institute of Astrophysics. The contention of the petitioner cannot be 46 acceptable as there is no material to presume that once the dismissal order has been challenged by him before the CAT which was dismissed and the said order has been confirmed by the High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, now, he cannot come and agitate that because Dr. K.B. Suresh and respondent No.5 are Keralites, they conspired against him in dismissing him from the service.
29. That apart, the petitioner has been permitted to inspect the documents and the CIC issued notice to respondent No.5 against the allegation made by the petitioner and respondent No.5 also sent a detailed report to the CIC. In spite of the same, the petitioner wants respondent No.3 as well as respondent No.5 to be prosecuted suspecting that they have willfully denied the information sought by him and dismissed his application. Therefore, he has filed a private complaint against respondent No.5 and the Section Officer of CAT and also the police officer. He has made allegations against the police officer Diwakar for having registered a case against 47 him. For the purpose of getting sanction to prosecute respondent Nos.3 and 5, the petitioner has filed the present petition directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to accord sanction to prosecute against respondent Nos.3 and 5. He has also made number of allegations against CIC and CPIO of CAT and even he went to the extent stating that the police officer also influenced X Additional Magistrate in remanding him to the judicial custody. He also alleges that Dr. K.B. Suresh is influencing the Magistrate and that, the Member of the CAT and the Chairman of the Institute have colluded together and committed the crime.
30. Apart from that, the petitioner has stated in the petition that the said Dr. K.B.Suresh has been recklessly abusing his vested powers and authorities and machineries, and his henchmen staff of CAT to mislead and to successfully influence, prejudice and pressurize various judges of various Courts to pass their orders to conceal his crime. The petitioner has further stated that the Judges 48 of High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.51917/2016(S-CAT) and R.P. 54/2017, and the Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.9362-9363/2019 and R.P. (C) No.1036-1037/2019, Chairman of the CAT in Transfer Petition Nos.241/2017 and 242/2017, while he has been recklessly making his criminal efforts to influence the police authorities and every magistrates of IV ACMM Court and X ACMM Court for dismissing these cases without investigation. The petitioner also alleges that Dr. K.B. Suresh has influenced the then Advocate General to grant sanction to initiate criminal contempt against the petitioner for filing a complaint to Hon'ble President of India on CASE FIXING DEAL CRIME, but to reject the sanction to the petitioner seeking contempt on him, for CASE FIXING DEAL CRIME.
31. The above said allegation of the petitioner at para 4.6 of the petition reveals that the petitioner challenged the order of his dismissal before the CAT and later, he challenged the same before this High Court and 49 later, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He was not successful in getting the relief. Even in spite of filing the review petition before the High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order of dismissal from his service has been confirmed by this High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such being the case, the petitioner is making allegations not only against Dr. Suresh but also against the Judges of this Court and the judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and also making allegations against the Magistrate for dismissing his complaint. Now, he wants to take revenge against Dr K.B. Suresh who has passed the impugned order as a Member of the CAT, which is nothing but the judicial order. His RTI application came to be disposed of by respondent No.5 being a CPIO and the appeal has also been disposed of by respondent No.3-the Chief Information Commissioner. Again, now, he wants to initiate criminal proceedings against them and he is seeking a direction of mandamus to respondent Nos.1 and 2 for according sanction. When he failed to get any relief from the Courts i.e. from CAT till the Hon'ble Supreme 50 Court, now he is intending to take revenge against Dr. K.B. Suresh and has filed a complaint and for having quarrelled with respondent No.5 on 24.07.2016 and Respondent No.5 also filed a complaint against him before the Ulsoor police. Therefore, he wants to file a counter complaint against her and also against the police officer, who has registered the case and arrested the petitioner for having committed the non-bailable offence. The petitioner is now seeking a direction to file a complaint against them and he has also filed an application under RTI Act for providing copy of the documents and showing the documents. Respondent No.5 stated that some of the copies of the documents cannot be given as those are the documents pertaining to the judicial proceedings and he is entitled to receive the same by filing the copy application and by paying necessary fee on the documents. When he was not allowed to inspect some of the documents, the petitioner is said to have used criminal force on respondent No.5 - CPIO. Even if it is considered that the applicant has acted under the RTI Act and he is also entitled for protection under Section 21 of 51 RTI Act, apart from the officials under the RTI Act, but for the reasons stated above, the act of the petitioner cannot be considered or presumed that it is acted with good faith in order to seek protection under Section 21 of the RTI Act.
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in AIR 2020 SC 4333 in the case of CIC VS.
HIGH COURT OF GUJARATH AND ANOTHER, at paragraphs 28 and 32, has held as under:
28. As discussed earlier, the object of the RTI Act itself recognizes the need to protect the institutional interest and also to make optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The procedure to obtain certified copies under the High Court Rules is not cumbersome and the procedure is very simple
- filing of an application/affidavit along with the requisite court fee stating the reasons for seeking the information. The information held by the High Court on the judicial side are the "personal information" of the litigants like title 52 cases and family court matters, etc. Under the guise of seeking information under the RTI Act, the process of the court is not to be abused and information not to be misused.
32. We fully endorse above views of the Delhi High Court. When the High Court Rules provide for a mechanism that the information/certified copies can be obtained by filing an application/affidavit, the provisions of the RTI Act are not to be resorted.
33. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is entitled to get information on some of the documents under the RTI Act, but for the information on the remaining documents, he has to file an application in accordance with law and receive the copy by making the necessary payment. Even otherwise, the CIC has allowed him to inspect the documents. Such being the case, when some of the documents have not been furnished to the petitioner, he cannot agitate and quarrel with respondent No.5 which amounts to criminal force on 53 the pubic servant. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim protection under Section 21 of the RTI Act.
34. Apart from that the concept of statutory immunity is available as protection from legal actions given to certain persons or entities by statute for the most part statutory immunity has grown out of and reflects Crowned immunity and/or judicial immunity, both of which developed as common law principles. Even Section 52 of Indian Penal Code provides immunity from the prosecution if work is done in good faith, and Section 3(22) of General Clauses Act also defines the term good faith as "A Thing shall be deemed to be done in good faith where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not." Therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 5 were the quasi judicial authority as well as official of CPIO who are entitled for immunity for prosecution and protection under the Act. Though, Section 21 of the RTI Act does not specify whether it is only to the officials under the RTI Act or also applicable to the applicant who files application before the 54 public authority for seeking information but the Kerala High Court has held that this protection available to the applicants also. However, as I stated in the aforementioned paragraphs of this order, the petitioner while getting information has quarreled, misbehaved, and has shown criminal force on the respondent No.5 and others officials which cannot be brought under the purview of Section 21 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to face the trial before the Magistrate and the proceedings against him cannot be quashed. Accordingly, the prayer at 8.1 is rejected.
35. As regards with the prayer at 8.2 he has prayed for issuing the writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Quasi Judicial Order passed by the respondent No.3- Chief information Commissioner and the appeal was filed by the petitioner wherein the respondent No.3 being appellate authority has allowed the appeal partly by directing respondent No.5 to furnish the documents at free of cost upto 25 pages and also directed the petitioner to pay the 55 amount as per the RTI rules for the remaining pages. Respondent No.3 also directed the authority to send the report. The learned respondent No.3 also allowed this petitioner to inspect the relevant and available records, sought at Paragraph 3 of the application. The learned respondent No.3 allowed the applicant to receive the documents except the affidavit. Therefore, there is no error or illegality committed by the respondent No.3 in the impugned order at Annexure-F such being the case, the question of quashing the said order does not arise. Hence, the same is liable to be rejected.
36. As regards with the prayer at 8.3 against respondent No.3 directing to discharge duty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, though the petitioner made several allegations against the officials/the officers of the CAT about the conspiracy and passing illegal orders etc., and filing complaint against him they are all without any basis. The respondent No.3 Central Information Commissioner has already discharged his official duty by directing 56 respondent No.5 to furnish some of the documents and to inspect some of the documents and accordingly the respondent No.5 by summoning him and allowing him to inspect the document by issuing notice. However, the petitioner quarreled with the respondent No.5 and the officials, due to which a complaint has been lodged against him with the police and this Court does not find any fault in the order passed by the respondent No.3. Therefore, the question of penalizing respondent No.3 or any officials who acted under the RTI Act as per Section 20 of the RTI Act does not rise. Hence, the 3rd prayer also liable to be dismissed.
37. As regard the prayer at 8.4, this is a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to discharge his official duty as per Section 21 of the RTI Act and to file an affidavit in Crime.No.53806/19 which is a complaint given by respondent No.5 as against the petitioner. The investigating officer has already completed the investigation and charge sheet has also been filed. 57 Therefore, respondent No.3-Secretary for CIC, cannot be directed to file any affidavit in the criminal case and therefore the same is liable to be rejected.
38. As regards the prayer at 8.5 and 8.6 which is also to issue writ of mandamus to respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 to initiate disciplinary action on respondent No.3. This Court has already held in above said paragraphs that there is no illegality committed by respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order at Annexure-F and also as the immunity or protection is available to respondent No.3 under Section 21 of the RTI Act, the direction cannot be issued to respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 for initiating any action against respondent No.3. That apart, the petitioner has not filed any application before respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 for according sanction to prosecute against respondent No.3. The respondent's counsel has also contended that when the petitioner has not filed any application before respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 58 for seeking sanction to prosecute against respondent No.3, question of directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the application of the petitioner and to accord sanction does not arise. Admittedly, the petitioner not filed any such application before the respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking sanction to prosecute respondent No.3 as accused No.4 in the private complaint filed by him. Therefore, question of issuing direction in the form of mandamus cannot be issued to respondent No.2 and 3 for according the sanction to prosecute Respondent No.3. Once there is no demand and refusal of the any permission sought by the petitioner, the question of directing the Respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 to consider the prayer does not arise. Therefore, both the prayers are hereby rejected.
39. On perusal of the entire records it reveals that the petitioner who is an engineer and employee of Indian Institute of Astro Physics lost the job in view of the termination by his employer. He has challenged the order of termination before the CAT. Thereafter, before the High 59 Court and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and he has failed in all legal battles against his employer. Merely the application under RTI Act for furnishing some information regarding dispatch register, whether it was dispatched on 27.6.16 or it was on 24.6.2016, does not make much difference as his appeal came to be dismissed by the CAT and non furnishing of dispatch register will not prejudice the case of the petitioner. He was failed to get the relief even from the highest Court of this country, by dismissing his SLP as well as review petition and filing of the private complaint against the CPIO and police officers who are the complainant and investigating officers is only to take revenge against them with a malafide intention to tarnish the image of the Quasi Judicial Authority.
40. The petitioner is not only suspecting the CAT member who passed the judicial order but also suspecting the Magistrate who was acted as per the provisions of code of criminal procedure. He is also suspecting the Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court stating that the 60 said Dr.K.P.Suresh, CAT member influencing the judiciary which is not correct. He should have faith in the judiciary. Once he has suffered the orders but again by way of filing the RTI application, he tried to take revenge against respondent Nos.3 and 5 by making so several allegations, especially the allegation of CASE FIXING DEAL CRIME which cannot be acceptable as the allegation is without any basis and therefore the prayers sought by the petitioner cannot be granted for the reasons stated above.
41. The petitioner-party in person has made a serious allegation against Dr. K.B. Suresh, a Member of the CAT, stating that Director of the Astrophysics and the said Dr. K.B. Suresh having colluded to dismiss his case and he has been involved in honey trap and he has used one Ms. C.R. Sangeetha as honey trap woman for committing a CASE FIXED DEAL CRIME and for passing an order against him. On enjoying the honey trap woman, he has passed the order by heinously defaming and 61 irreparably injuring the impeccable character of the petitioner. The said allegations are without any basis and can not be acceptable. Once the petitioner is unsuccessful in his appeal before the High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court even in the review petitions, making allegations against the CAT member is unwarranted.
42. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the CPIO of CAT has kept ready the copies of the documents sought by petitioner and the petitioner is at liberty to receive the same. The submission the learned counsel is placed on record.
43. In view of the reasons stated above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
44. Accordingly, writ petition filed by the petitioner party-in-person is dismissed.
However, liberty granted to the petitioner to receive the documents from the CPIO which is already said to be kept ready.
62No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mv/CS/akv