Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that what are all the information that could be furnished to the second respondent, had been furnished, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, except the minutes of the Judges and file notings, which cannot be furnished to the second respondent. He further submitted that on 21.8.2014, the second respondent was informed once again about the action taken on his complaint against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. In all other respects, the learned counsel reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and in support of such submissions, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2012 (8) MLJ 122 (SC) (G.R.Deshpande Vs. Cen. Information Commr.) and the decisions of this Court reported in 2013 (5) MLJ 134 (Registrar General of High Court of Madras Vs. K.Elango), 2013 (5) MLJ 385 (Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs. A.Kanagaraj), 2013 (5) MLJ 513 (Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs. R.M.Subramanian) and 2013 (5) MLJ 694 (Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs.K.U.Rajasekar).

(a) It is relevant to notice that similar issue arose before a Division Bench of this Court in respect of the information relating to the employees of the Subordinate Courts/Judicial Officers, etc., in the decision reported in 2013 (5) MLJ 134 (Registrar General of High Court of Madras Vs. K.Elango), wherein the Division Bench in paragraph 59 has observed that the notings, jottings, administrative letters, intricate internal discussions, deliberations etc., of the High Court cannot be brought under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act and furnishing of those information will certainly impede and hinder the regular, smooth and proper functioning of the institution. The relevant paragraphs 59 to 61 of the abovesaid decision are extracted hereunder:

(b) In the decision reported in 2013 (5) MLJ 513 (Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs. R.M.Subramanian), a Division Bench of this Court observed in paragraphs 94 to 96 as follows:

"94. To put it succinctly, the copies of Minutes recorded by the Hon'ble Portfolio Judge, Pudukottai District dated 16.12.2010 and the Minutes recorded by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 07.03.2011 in the Criminal Contempt Petition issue, cannot be furnished or supplied to the 1st Respondent/Petitioner, for the purpose of maintaining utmost confidentiality and secrecy of the delicate function of the internal matters of High Court. If the copies of the Minutes dated 16.12.2010 and 07.03.2011, as claimed by the 1st Respondent/Petitioner, are furnished, then, it will definitely make an inroad to the proper, serene function of the Hon'ble High Courtbeing an Independent Authority under the Constitution of India. Moreover, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court [as Competent Authority - Public Authority under Section 2(e)(iii) and 2(h)(a) of the Act, 22 of 2005 and also Plenipotentiary in the Judicial hierarchy] can be provided with an enough freedom and inbuilt safeguards in exercising his discretionary powers either to furnish the information or not to part with the information, as prayed for by any applicant much less the 1st Respondent/Petitioner.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

Registrar (Vigilance)"

22. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, we find that the second respondent cannot have any grievance, as the petitioner has permitted the second respondent to peruse the files regarding the action taken and also informed him of the fact that his complaint had been ordered to be closed. However, the second respondent contends that the file notings and other minutes sought for in his complaint were not furnished. Such information cannot be furnished to the second respondent, as held by this Court in the decision reported in 2013 (5) MLJ 134 (cited supra).