2015 (2) TMI 259 - HC - Indian Laws

Denial of right to information - Denial on the ground that under the Act, right to information is provided only to a citizen and not to a group of citizens - Held that - It cannot be denied that the appellants before the Commission individually being citizens of India were entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act for seeking information. Merely because more than one citizen had sought information by filing a joint application when their cause of action is same, it cannot be rejected holding that the same was filed by group of persons. The ultimate object is to avoid multiplicity. In case more than one individual can file separate application for same relief, they can always file a joint application. - Accordingly, the order passed by the Commission rejecting the appeal holding the same to be not maintainable cannot be sustained and is set aside. However, the matter need not be remanded back for the reason that effective relief has already been granted to the petitioners and the respondents have undertaken to supply them copy of the rules and the petitioners are not entitled to any further information - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of joint applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing to appellants.
3. Proper conduct and procedural guidelines for quasi-judicial authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Joint Applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005:
The petitioners challenged the order of the Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana, which dismissed their appeal based on Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Commission held that the Act grants the right to information to individual citizens and not to a group of citizens, making their joint application non-maintainable. The petitioners argued that they are citizens of India, and their joint application aimed to avoid multiplicity of litigation. They contended that filing jointly does not alter their individual status as citizens. The court noted that the petitioners, born in India post-constitution, had not formed a separate legal entity by filing jointly. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in N. Khadervali Saheb (Dead) by LRs and another v. N. Gudu Sahib (Dead) and others, the court emphasized that even a partnership firm is not an independent legal entity, and partners retain individual ownership. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was invoked to argue that singular terms include the plural, supporting joint applications when the cause of action is the same. The court concluded that rejecting joint applications to avoid multiplicity is unsustainable and set aside the Commission's order.

2. Requirement of Granting an Opportunity of Hearing to Appellants:
The petitioners also contended that the Commission did not provide them an opportunity to be heard before dismissing their appeal. The court underscored the principle that no one can be condemned unheard, referencing multiple Supreme Court rulings, including Sayeedur Rehman v. State of Bihar and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. The court asserted that appellants must be informed of hearing dates to present their case, and failure to do so results in prejudice. This procedural lapse alone was sufficient to invalidate the Commission's order.

3. Proper Conduct and Procedural Guidelines for Quasi-Judicial Authorities:
The court highlighted the need for quasi-judicial authorities to follow proper procedures and ensure transparency. Referring to its earlier decision in C.W.P. No. 17157 of 2010 - M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and another, the court emphasized the importance of clear communication, proper record-keeping, and the use of technology for serving notices. The court directed that orders should specify the right to appeal and the relevant timelines to guide parties. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's observations in Namit Sharma v. Union of India, stressing that Information Commissions should be manned by legally qualified individuals with judicial acumen to handle intricate legal questions effectively.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the Commission's order rejecting the appeal on non-maintainability grounds and emphasized the necessity of granting a hearing to appellants. It provided guidelines for quasi-judicial authorities to ensure procedural fairness and transparency. The court directed that this order be communicated to relevant authorities for compliance and future reference. The petition was disposed of accordingly.