2014 (8) TMI 995 - HC - Indian Laws

RTI - Continuity of adjudication process - Commissioner held that application of the petitioner under the said Act and anticipation of its outcome could not stop the adjudication process - Held that - the information under the Right to Information Act and its outcome have nothing to do with the disclosure of documents in a case. The Commissioner had to decide whether those documents which the writ petitioner wanted were to be disclosed to the writ petitioner at all or whether some of the documents could be disclosed. If those documents could not be made available to the writ petitioner, reasons therefor had to be given. Thereafter, the Commissioner ought to have decided whether to give an opportunity to the writ petitioner to file an additional reply to the show cause notice. There is one fundamental mistake that the Commissioner committed while passing the order dated 5th February, 2014. While dealing with the request of the writ petitioner for supply of copies of note-sheets, intra department correspondence, etc. pertaining to the investigation of the case, he referred to the Right to Information Act. He said that the application of the petitioner under the said Act and anticipation of its outcome could not stop the adjudication process.In those circumstances, the order of the Commissioner dated 5th February, 2014 is set aside with liberty to him to re-adjudicate the case according to the above observations.

Summary

Issues involved:
The fundamental mistake committed by the Commissioner in passing the order dated 5th February, 2014 regarding the supply of copies of documents to the writ petitioner under the Right to Information Act.

Analysis:
The Commissioner erred by referring to the Right to Information Act while dealing with the request for documents, as the Act's application and its outcome should not affect the adjudication process. The Revenue did not rely on the documents requested by the petitioner, which were not strictly the petitioner's documents but in the custody of the Revenue. The Commissioner should have independently decided whether the documents could be disclosed to the petitioner and provided reasons if not. The Commissioner also failed to consider giving the petitioner an opportunity to file an additional reply to the show cause notice.

The Commissioner's finding that the petitioner's RTI application did not permit a grace period for submission of final replies or adjournments was deemed erroneous by the Court. Consequently, the Court set aside the Commissioner's order dated 5th February, 2014 and granted him the liberty to re-adjudicate the case based on the Court's observations. Affidavits were not called for as all relevant papers were before the Court, and any allegations in the petition were considered not admitted. The writ application was disposed of with the above order, and certified copies were to be supplied to the parties upon compliance with formalities.