Gujarat HC Directs Information Commissioner to Take Action Against Officer Acting in Contravention of RTI Act 

Must Read

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Follow us

A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the actions of the Public Information Officer, Bharuch. The Court has observed the activity to be callous and directed the authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act.

Brief Facts

The petitioner had demanded information, details and documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by an application dated 19.4.2018. The respondent authority, Public Information Officer (PIO) rejected the application only on the ground that it pertains to the third party. Such a piece of information is protected under the privilege of Section 8(1)(d) the Right to Information Act, 2005. Further, the petitioner preferred the First Appeal before the appellate authority, which failed to respond within the stipulated time. After that, the petitioner approached the State Information Commissioner (SIC) who allowed the appeal and directed the respondent authorities to furnish the required information, Moreover, in paragraph 3 of the order, the SIC criticized that the actions of the respondent, which were totally based on flimsy grounds.

However, the respondent authorities did not comply with the order instead took a different stand. They stated that no record could be presented as it was either destroyed in an earthquake or not available for perusal.

Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that the action of the authority deprived their right to information.    

Court’s Observations

The Court observed the conflicting stand of the respondent authorities at the appropriate time, i.e. contentions before and after the SIC order. The Court asserted- “The respondent authorities had the record with them and after perusal of such record have found, that the information sought for by the petitioner is missing, and thereafter, change their stand of no record being available. Therefore, the same cannot be accepted by this Court.”

Accordingly, the Court noted the appropriate provisions under the Right to Information Act, 2005. According to Section 20, SIC has the powers to impose a penalty on the PIO either if they refuse to receive an application or not furnish the requested information within 30 days.

Court’s Order

The judgement was pronounced by a single-judge bench comprising of Justice A. Y. Kogje. The Court passed an oral order relegating back the matter to the State Information Commissioner. The SIC shall be initiating proceedings under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Relevance

The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted to mandate timely response to citizen requests for governmental information. The Act has been in discussion since the Prime Minister’s Office has refused to divulge any information about the PM-CARES Fund set up to provide relief during an emergency such as COVID-19 pandemic. It has contended that the fund qualifies as CSR expenditure under the Companies Act, 2013, hence, not a public authority under the impugned Act.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -