Gujarat High Court
P G Raichandani vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 25 January, 2016
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/SCA/21006/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21006 of 2015
==========================================================
P G RAICHANDANI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA SHAH, AGP for respondent No.1 on advance copy
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 25/01/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr.Dakshesh Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Vrunda Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 on advance copy.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by respondent No.1-Chief Information Commissioner under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) in Appeal No.2786 of 2014.
3. The following facts emerge from the record of the petition:
3.1 Respondent No.3 filed an application for the following two information, which was received by the petitioner on 03.09.2013:-
(i) Total applications received for impact fees Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Thu Jan 28 01:15:11 IST 2016 C/SCA/21006/2015 ORDER (under GRUDA)
(ii) Sanctioned applications out of received applications till 03.09.2013 3.2 That respondent No.2-Authority under the Act after scrutiny of the applications, also invited objections from the third party and ultimately, vide order dated 01.10.2013 informed respondent No.3 herein that 950 applications have received for impact fees and declined to give second limb of the application dated 03.09.2013 on basis of the provisions of Sections 8 and 11 of the Act.
3.3 Thereafter, being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority, which came to be rejected vide order dated 06.12.2013.
3.4 Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.3 challenged both the orders i.e. order dated 01.10.2013 as well as order dated 06.12.2013 before the Appellate Authority by way of Appeal dated 07.04.2014, which came to be allowed and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner i.e. Public Information Officer/Chief Officer is before this Court.
4. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that second appellate authority has travelled beyond the application, which was originally filed by the petitioner. It was also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to provide information, which is originally prayed for in the application dated 03.09.2013.
No other or further submissions are made by learned counsel for the respective parties.
Page 2 of 4HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Thu Jan 28 01:15:11 IST 2016 C/SCA/21006/2015 ORDER
5. Upon Considering the submissions made and upon going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority has not travelled beyond the original application. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that information till 10.11.2015 is asked for, on careful scrutiny of the order impugned deserves to be negatived as in operative order itself, it is clear that inspection of 950 applications was to be done/permitted by the Municipality before 10.11.2015. On the contrary, the Appellate Authority has only dealt with the first limb of the application, which is sought for by respondent No.3. Record of this petition as well as the impugned order clearly spells out that order-in-origin passed by the petitioner as a Public Information Officer has clearly indicated that till 01.10.2013, 950 applications were received for impact fees.
6. In light of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the second Appellate Authority has travelled beyond the original application filed by respondent No.3. This Court finds that there is no error much less any error apparent on the face of record. In ground "D" of the petition, it is clearly mentioned by the petitioner that 950 applications were received and only 33 applications were cleared till the date of the application.
7. In light of this admission, the petitioner is bound under the provisions of the Act to implement the impugned order. Hence, no error much less any error apparent on the face of record is found and therefore, this is not a fit case for interference of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Page 3 of 4HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Thu Jan 28 01:15:11 IST 2016 C/SCA/21006/2015 ORDER For the foregoing, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) Suchit Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Thu Jan 28 01:15:11 IST 2016