Wednesday, January 30, 2013

RE: [HumJanenge] SC Judgment : Karnataka Info Commissioner v/s PIO

It is very clear for the last few years that the HIGH COURTS & Supreme Court are totally HOSTILE against the RTI ACT. Can the Supreme Court explain as to how a person sitting in say Kanpur like myself obtain the Copies of the Writ Petitions etc from Karnataka  High Court. I will have to go to the High Court, engage some Lawyer and then apply for the Certified copy of needed Writ or order and then wait till they are provided by the HC and then carry them back and by that time I will have spent about twenty thousand minimum. That is why the RTI ACt was given overriding effect over all other ACTS but the Courts are simply ignoring this fact.I fail TO UNDER STAND AS TO WHY TILL NOW NOBODY HAS POINTED THIS BEFORE THE COURTS OR IF IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT AND EVEN THEN THE SUPREME COURT IS IGNORING IT THEN "EVEN GOD CANNOT SAVE THE COUNTRY". THIS IS A PHRASE USED BY THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF IN A JUDGMENT A FEW YEARS BACK BUT IT FAILED TO MENTION THAT THE COUNTRY NEEDED SAVING FROM THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF FIRSTLY THEN FROM OTHERS.
Robby Sharma Kanpur
Mob-09415438326,09235844258


Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 01:42:17 +0800
From: vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC Judgment : Karnataka Info Commissioner v/s PIO
To: HumJanenge@googlegroups.com

Is he named ? to the best of my knowledge the INfo comm has demitted his office on superannuation . The Present SCIC today told me that the entire was acted upon the advise of Advocate genersl .
few freinds have alredy made RTI requests let us see the Documents
But this not ego clash by KIC but KHC

N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.

--- On Thu, 24/1/13, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] SC Judgment : Karnataka Info Commissioner v/s PIO
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>, "humjanenge@yahoogroups.co.in" <humjanenge@yahoogroups.co.in>
Date: Thursday, 24 January, 2013, 8:01 PM

Please read the judgment below:

My Query:

Who will pay the Rs 100,000 ?

The Karnataka State Information Commission
OR
The Karnataka Chief Information Commissioner
(He was Petitioner in the HC)
OR 
The Karnataka Information Commissioner
(The petitioner in the SC)

RTIwanted

====================

ITEM NO.30               COURT NO.4             SECTION IVA                S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS    Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013                                                  CC 1853/2013    (From the judgement and order  dated 15/06/2012 in WA No.3255/2010,  of  The  HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)    KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSIONER                Petitioner(s)                     VERSUS    STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & ANR            Respondent(s)    (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report ))    Date: 18/01/2013  This Petition was called on for hearing today.    CORAM :          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE      For Petitioner(s)        Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.      For Respondent(s)               UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                 O R D E R                         Delay condoned.                       This petition filed by Karnataka  Information  Commissioner        for setting aside order dated 15.6.2012 passed by the  Division  Bench        of the Karnataka High  Court  in  Writ  Appeal  No.3255/2010  (GM-RES)        titled Karnataka Information Commission v.  State  Public  Information        Officer and another cannot but be described as a  frivolous  piece  of        litigation which deserves  to  be  dismissed  at  the  threshold  with        exemplary costs.                   Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 6(1)  of        the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act')  and  sought        certain documents and information from the Public Information  Officer        - Deputy Registrar (Establishment) of  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka        (respondent No.1). His prayer was for supply of  certified  copies  of        some information/documents regarding guidelines and  rules  pertaining        to scrutiny and classification of writ  petitions  and  the  procedure        followed by the Karnataka High  Court  in  respect  of  Writ  Petition        Nos.26657 of 2004 and 17935 of 2006.                   Respondent No.1 disposed of the application  of  respondent        No.2 vide order dated 3.8.2007 and intimated him that the  information        sought by him is available in the Karnataka High  Court  Act  and  the        Rules and he can obtain the certified copies of the  order  sheets  of        the two writ petitions by filing  appropriate  application  under  the        High Court Rules.                   Respondent  No.2  filed  complaint  dated  17.1.2008  under        Section 18 of the Act before the Karnataka Information Commission (for        short, 'the Commission')and made a grievance that the certified copies        of the documents had not been made available to him despite payment of        the  requisite  fees.   The  Commission  allowed  the   complaint   of        respondent No.2 and directed respondent No.1 to furnish the High Court        Act, Rules and certified copies of order sheets free of cost.                   Respondent No.1 challenged  the  aforesaid  order  in  Writ        Petition No.9418/2008.  The learned Single Judge allowed the same  and        quashed  the  order  of  the  Commission  by  making   the   following        observations:                   "The information as sought for by the respondent in respect                   of Item Nos. 1, 3 and 4 mentioned above  are  available  in                   Karnataka High Court Act and  Rules  made  thereunder.  The                   said  Act  and  Rules  are  available  in  market.  If  not                   available, the respondent has to obtain copies of the  same                   from the publishers.  It is not open for the respondent  to                   ask for  copies  of  the  same  from  the  petitioner.  But                   strangely,  the  Karnataka   Information   Commission   has                   directed the  petitioner  to  furnish  the  copies  of  the                   Karnataka High Court Act & Rules free of cost  under  Right                   to Information Act. The impugned order in  respect  of  the                   same is illegal and arbitrary.                       The information in respect of Item Nos.6 to 17 is  relating                   to  Writ  Petition  No.26657/2004  and  Writ  Petition  No.                   17935/2006.  The  respondent  is  a  party  to   the   said                   proceedings. Thus, according  to  the  Rules  of  the  High                   Court, it is open for the respondent to file an application                   for certified copies of the order  sheet  or  the  relevant                   documents for  obtaining  the  same.   (See  Chapter-17  of                   Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959). As it is  open  for  the                   respondent to obtain certified copies of  the  order  sheet                   pending as well as the disposed of matters, the State Chief                   Information Commissioner is not justified in directing  the                   petitioner to furnish copies of the same free of costs.  If                   the order of the State Chief Information Commissioner is to                   be implemented, then, it  will  lead  to  illegal  demands.                   Under the Rules, any person who is party or not a party  to                   the proceedings can obtain the orders of the High Court  as                   per the procedure prescribed in the Rules mentioned  supra.                   The State Chief Information  Commissioner  has  passed  the                   order without applying his mind to the  relevant  Rules  of                   the High Court. The State  Chief  Information  Commissioner                   should  have  adverted  to  the  High  Court  Rules  before                   proceeding further. Since the impugned order is illegal and                   arbitrary, the same is liable to be  quashed.  Accordingly,                   the following order is made."                       Respondent No.2 did not challenge the order of the  learned        Single Judge. Instead, the Commission filed an appeal  along  with  an        application for condonation of 335 days' delay.   The  Division  Bench        dismissed the application for condonation of delay and also held  that        the Commission cannot be treated as an aggrieved person.                   We have heard Shri V. N. Raghupathy,  learned  counsel  for        the petitioner.                   What has surprised us is that while  the  writ  appeal  was        filed by the Commission, the special leave petition has been preferred        by the Karnataka Information Commissioner.  Learned counsel could  not        explain as to how the petitioner herein,  who  was  not  an  appellant        before the Division Bench of the High Court can challenge the impugned        order.  He also could not explain as to what  was  the  locus  of  the        Commission to file appeal against the  order  of  the  learned  Single        Judge whereby its order had been set aside.                   The entire exercise undertaken by the  Commission  and  the        Karnataka Information Commissioner to  challenge  the  orders  of  the        learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the  High  Court  shows        that the concerned officers have wasted public  money  for  satisfying        their ego. If respondent No.2 felt  aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the        learned Single Judge, nothing prevented him from challenging the  same        by filing writ appeal.  However, the fact of the matter is that he did        not question the order of the learned Single Judge. The Commission and        the Karnataka Information Commissioner  had  no  legitimate  cause  to        challenge the order  passed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  and  the        Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, the writ appeal filed  by        the commission  was  totally  unwarranted  and  misconceived  and  the        Division Bench  of  the  High  Court  did  not  commit  any  error  by        dismissing the same.                   With the above observations, the special leave petition  is        dismissed. For filing a frivolous petition, the petitioner is  saddled        with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The amount of cost shall be deposited  by        the petitioner with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee  within        a period of 2 months from today.  If the  needful  is  not  done,  the        Secretary of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall  recover        the amount of cost from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.                |(Parveen Kr.Chawla)                    | |(Phoolan Wati Arora)                  |  |Court Master                           | |Court Master                          |  |                                       | |                                      |        -----------------------  5  


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HumJanenge+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment