2014 (2) TMI 1332 - HC - Indian Laws

Non-disclosure of information - application seeking vague and voluminous uncalled for information from the petitioner - Grievance is that the petitioner, finds itself harassed by the applications filed by respondent No.4 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Held that - we are unable to accept the contentions of the petitioner for reasons more than one. Firstly, that the petitioner has rushed to this Court claiming a relief against a private individual respondent No.4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 appear to have been arrayed so as to render the matter maintainable under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Secondly, the petitioner needs to test its contention that it is not a public Authority u/s 2(h) of the R.T.I. Act. The petitioner needs to take a specific stand under the provisions of the Act while dealing with the application of respondent No.4. Instead of rushing to this Court, the petitioner should first deal with the application filed by respondent No.4, which is pending before it. It s decision will always be subject to judicial scrutiny under the Act. The contention of the petitioner that it is an onerous task and a financial burden to prepare copies of documents to be supplied to the applicant, clearly appears to be unsustainable since the charges are to be paid by the applicant. If the applicant makes a claim that he is below poverty line, the same has to be determined by the appropriate Government in view of the proviso to Section 7(5). Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner is a "Public Authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
2. Whether the proviso to Section 7(5) of the RTI Act is arbitrary and ultravires the Constitution.
3. Whether the petitioner is unduly burdened by the RTI applications filed by respondent No.4.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the petitioner is a "Public Authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act:
The petitioner, a registered society under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, argued that it is not a "Public Authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The court, referencing the Supreme Court's interpretation in Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, emphasized that the RTI Act aims to ensure transparency and accountability. The court noted that the petitioner needs to address the application filed by respondent No.4 under the RTI Act and cannot avoid this responsibility merely by claiming hardships. The court stated, "The petitioner needs to take a specific stand under the provisions of the Act while dealing with the application of respondent No.4."

2. Whether the proviso to Section 7(5) of the RTI Act is arbitrary and ultravires the Constitution:
The petitioner challenged the proviso to Section 7(5) of the RTI Act, arguing it was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The proviso states that no fee shall be charged from persons below the poverty line. The court found this contention unsustainable, noting that the fees for providing information are to be paid by the applicant, and the determination of whether an applicant is below the poverty line is the responsibility of the appropriate government. The court concluded, "The said contention and the challenge to the proviso to Section 7(5) at the behest of the petitioner in the above circumstances is, therefore, required to be turned down."

3. Whether the petitioner is unduly burdened by the RTI applications filed by respondent No.4:
The petitioner claimed that the RTI applications filed by respondent No.4 were intended to harass and burden the institution. The court, however, emphasized the importance of the RTI Act in promoting transparency and accountability, citing the Supreme Court's observations in various cases about the fundamental right to information. The court stated, "The intent and object of the Act has to be achieved, in as much as, the petitioner cannot be excused from deciding the application filed by respondent No.4 merely on the ground of hardships." The court further noted that public authorities are obligated to maintain records and disseminate information as mandated by Section 4 of the RTI Act, rejecting the petitioner's argument that supplying documents is an onerous task.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner must address the RTI application filed by respondent No.4 and cannot claim exemption from the obligations under the RTI Act. The challenge to the proviso to Section 7(5) was also rejected, and the court reiterated the importance of maintaining transparency and accountability as intended by the RTI Act. The judgment concluded with the statement, "In the light of the above, this petition is devoid of merits and therefore, stands dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs."