9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his two applications, available documents or information have been already supplied and remaining material is not available with it, therefore, does not find any consideration by respondent No.1. Issue whether copy of approval order sought for on 13th December 2010 by respondent No.5 is available with the petitioners or then, it is available with authorities granting approval i.e. respondent No.2, therefore, need not be looked into by this Court. Similarly, on 28th December 2012, respondent No.5 has demanded total nine documents or information & respondent 5 has stated that the information or documents in relation to serial Nos.1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 are still not received by him. Whether this information or document/s is available with the petitioners or not can also be looked into by respondent No.1 after extending them an opportunity of hearing. It is not necessary for this Court to pronounce on it as petitioners have not been given necessary opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned order. - WRIT PETITION NO. 3650 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 8-1-2013 - B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Shri Gaurav Joshi with Murtaza Federal, Shrinivas Bobde, instructed by M/s. Federal Rashmika ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order is unsustainable. 4. The provisions of section 2(n) defining information are read out to contend that its sweep is wide but then its impact is curtailed because of a narrower concept of right to information contained in section 2(g) thereof. This aspect has been totally lost sight of by the authorities. Powers of State Information Commissioner as laid down in section 19(8) are also relied upon with submission that those powers do not envisage capacity to give direction to other authorities to take recourse to other enactments to coerce the petitioners to supply the necessary information. The direction by respondent No.1 to Education Officer that he should use his powers under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 1977 Act ) is, therefore, urged to be without jurisdiction. By way of abundant precaution and in the alternative, it is added that entire information available with the petitioners has already been supplied to respondent No.5employee. The information which is not available cannot be asked to be supplied under the RTI Act. Respondent No.5 is a dismissed employee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat respondent No.1, by directing the Education Officer (Secondary) to procure information from the petitioners and then to supply it to respondent No.5, has done something which is prohibited by RTI Act and the other contention about denial of opportunity of hearing by said respondent are, therefore, to be evaluated. Rival contention about need of adherence to S. 11 relating to the third party procedure for procuring the information from these petitioners or any of them may deserve a look dependent upon the answer to this exercise. However, if provisions of S. 19 of RTI Act are held insufficient to clothe the appellate authority with power to issue the directions of nature / type as in present case, the complaint of breach of principles of natural justice by petitioner, may not assume much importance. Respective Counsel, therefore have addressed this Court at some length in that regard. If the said authorities are found not to possess such powers, then only other grievances as raised do not survive. Further course of action to be adopted by this Court therefore depends upon scope of S. 19(8) which calls for determination first. 8. The order of respondent No.1 dated 10th Febr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use other powers available to such public authority i.e. conferred upon it under any other law like 1977 Act. The Education Officer (Secondary) is a public authority and has acted as first appeal authority also in the present matter. Statutorily, it is associated with administration and functioning of all recognized and approved schools due to in accordance with the provisions of 1977 Act as also Secondary School Code. It has got various powers to monitor the functioning and standard of education in terms of these statutory instruments. For that purpose it can access the records of the petitioners. Here, overriding effect given to RTI Act vide its S. 22 also assumes significance. Hence, a direction by respondent No.1 in its order dated 10th February 2012 to respondent No.2 to use any of those powers for procuring information from the petitioners cannot be viewed as excessive. The contention that what is directly prohibited has been achieved indirectly through such a direction or course of action is, therefore, misconceived and unsustainable. 9. Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in AIR 2010 Delhi 159 Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts the right to information to citizens vide Section 3. Citizen seeking information need not give any reasons for such demand there is no requirement of scrutiny into his locus standi. I find that when the procedure to exercise the right to information is statutorily prescribed its breach is to be redressed exclusively by the forums created thereunder, the execution of such adjudicated entitlement against unwilling establishment by invoking all available legal avenues is the deliberate measure an integral part of the scheme of RTI Act. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also urged that though definition of information as contained in section 2(f) is comparatively wide, that scope is curtailed when RTI Act confers upon the persons like respondent No.5 right to information. He has urged that section 2(j) defining this phrase right to information is intended at controlling and narrowing wide sweep of section 2(f). Similarly, the petitioners are claiming themselves to be a third party as defined in section 2(l) of RTI Act. None of these contentions are addressed to by respondent No.1. Perusal of impugned appellate judgment shows that Head Mistress working w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
