Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neeraj Kush vs State Information Commission Haryana ... on 28 May, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 4965 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 4965 of 2011
Date of decision : 28.5.2012
Neeraj Kush ...... Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commission Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana/respondent No. 1, vide which appeal preferred by the petitioner against the letter dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P-6), passed by the First Appellate Authority-cum-Inspector General, Intelligence/respondent No. 2 stands dismissed.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner moved an application dated 2.7.2009 (Annexure P-2) before the State Public Information Officer/respondent No. 3, requesting therein for supply of certified copy of complaint filed by one Shri Mukesh Malhotra, the then Inspector, Criminal Investigation Department, now posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar against Shri Sukhbir Goyat, District Attorney for violation of human rights because of misbehaviour and maltreatment. This information was refused by respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the Criminal Investigation Department (in CWP No. 4965 of 2011 -2- short 'CID') has been exempted from providing information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short 'RTI Act') as per the Notification dated 29.12.2005, issued by the State of Haryana under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act and information sought by the petitioner does not fall within the exception to the said Notification, which mandate supply of information relating to corruption and human rights violation. The information sought by the petitioner did not fall within the purview of human rights violation or corruption and, thus, the information cannot be supplied. Against this order, petitioner preferred first appeal before the Authority under the RTI Act, i.e. Inspector General, Intelligence/respondent No. 2, which on the same grounds, rejected the claim of the petitioner, vide letter dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P-6) and the order was further challenged by the petitioner before the Second Appellate Authority, i.e. State Information Commission, Haryana/respondent No. 3, under the RTI Act. The same has also been rejected, vide order dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the petitioner is a third party and has no locus standi in the matter and the complaint also does not indicate any violation of human rights. As the matter involves two officers of the Government departments and any complaint made by one against the other is a matter to be settled by the two concerned departments. The complainant is a senior functionary of the police department and is capable of looking after his own interest and, therefore, the State Information Commission finds no justification for providing the copy of the complaint to the petitioner. This, counsel for the petitioner contends is against the spirit of the provisions as contained under Section 8 Clause (j) of the RTI Act. Further, the provisions as contained under Section 11 of the RTI Act, have not been followed by the Authorities below. His contention is that the exemption granted under Clause (4) of Section 24 of the RTI Act is limited to the CWP No. 4965 of 2011 -3- information relating to intelligence and security organizations and only this information can be denied and all other information should be supplied except as exempted under the RTI Act. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 12904 of 2009 First Appellate Authority and another Versus Chief Information Commissioner and another, decided on 27.1.2011 (Annexure P-10) to contend that the information as sought for by the petitioner needs to be supplied to him. His further submission is that the information, which has been sought by the petitioner, is covered by the definition of human rights as provided under Clause (d) of Section 2(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and is supported by the International Covenants on civil and political rights. Reference has also been made to the Article 21 of the Constitution of India where the definition of word 'life and personal liberty' has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in support of which reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Re:
Noise Pollution AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3136 and Chairman, Railway Board Versus Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988. He on this basis contends that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the application dated 2.7.2009 (Annexure-P-2), preferred by the petitioner, be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
On the other hand, counsel for respondents has argued the case on the grounds which have been taken by the Authorities below, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of information under the RTI Act. He contends that no information is required to be supplied by the Criminal Investigation Department as the same has been exempted under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. The reasons assigned for not granting the information to the petitioner have been reiterated and justified by him. The judgment relied upon CWP No. 4965 of 2011 -4- by the counsel for the petitioner it has been submitted to be not applicable to the present writ petition as in the said judgment the information, which was sought, had no relation with the third party and was general in nature. Accordingly, prayer has been made for dismissal of the present petition.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
A perusal of order dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana/respondent No. 1 would show that the said Authority, on the basis of contention raised by the petitioner that the information sought by him, vide application dated 2.7.2009 (Annexure-P-2), is related to violation of human rights and, therefore, needs to be supplied to him and would not fall within the exemption, as per the Notification dated 29.12.2005, issued by the Government under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act sought for copy of the complaint made by Shri Mukesh Malhotra. On production of the said complaint, the same was perused by the State Information Commission and it was found that the complaint mainly pertained to some exchange of words between Shri Mukesh Malhotra, who was the then Inspector, CID and at the time of passing of the order, was posted as DSP, Yamuna Nagar, against Shri Sukhbir Goyat, District Attorney, which the State Information Commission found, had no relationship with the violation of human rights. It was a matter between two officers of the Government departments where a complaint was made by one against the other, which had no public interest involved, entitling the petitioner to the grant of information as sought for by him. I am in agreement with the opinion expressed by the State Information Commission, Haryana, as the petitioner is a stranger and, thus third party, as defined under Section 2(n) of the RTI Act. Information qua the third party can only be provided by the competent CWP No. 4965 of 2011 -5- authority where it is of the opinion, if the public interest in disclosure of the same outweighs inimportance, any possible harm and injury to the third party. Thus while forming this opinion, the competent authority has to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the personal interest which in the present case has rightly been found to be tilted against the claim as put forth by the petitioner. Although, as per Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant making a request for information is not required to assign any reason for requesting the information. But, during the course of hearing, as the petitioner was seeking equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the reason for seeking the said information was asked from the counsel, who could not give any reason as to why this information was being obtained, which casts a doubt with regard to the bonafides for which the information as sought for by the petitioner under the RTI Act, which has a potential of being misused against a third party, who is not a party to the present writ petition. A person when approaches this Court under the writ jurisdiction has to satisfy its bonafides before any equitable relief can be claimed by him under the discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, as per Section 8 (j) of the RTI Act, the information has rightly been declined by the State Information Commission as the same is exempted under the said provision also.
Counsel for the petitioner has insisted that the complaint submitted by Shri Mukesh Malhotra against Shri Sukhbir Goyat relates to violation of human rights as he has pointed out misbehaviour and maltreatment given to him by Sukhbir Goyat, which would cover under the provisions of the Human Rights. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as there is nothing on the record to suggest that there was any such violation of human rights. As is apparent from the order dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure-P-1), passed by CWP No. 4965 of 2011 -6- the State Information Commission, the complaint merely pertained to exchange of words between two officers, which cannot be said to be violative of the human rights, which would fall within the exception as provided under the Notification dated 29.12.2005, issued by the Government of Haryana or under the provisions of Section 24 of the RTI Act. The present petition is totally misconceived and lacks bonafide on the part of the petitioner which calls for appropriate action by the Court as the petitioner has approached this Court not with clean hands but for some ulterior reasons, may be to rake up his personal vengeance etc. thus calling for imposition of costs, so that such type of litigation is discouraged.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed with Rs. 10,000/- as costs to be deposited with the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Haryana, within a period of two months. Certified copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Haryana, with liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, in case the costs, as imposed by this Court, is not deposited by the petitioner.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 28.5.2012 sjks