Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1194 (BOM)

Village Panchayat of Candolim v. Betty Alvares

2012-07-04

F.M.REIS

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard Shri Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Smt. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1. 2. The Above Appeal challenges the Orders passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal dated 28.04.2003 and the Order dated 16.01.2004, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Respondent no.1 challenging an Order passed by the Secretary of Panchayat under the Goa Right to Information Act, 1997, came to be al1owcd. The subsequent Order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 16.01.2001 was dismissing the application for review filed by the Petitioner. 3. Shri Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has assailed the impugned Order essentially on the ground that during the course of the arguments before the Tribunal, a contention was raised by the Petitioner to the effect that the Respondent no. 1 was a foreign citizen and, as such, not entitled for the information sought from the Secretary of the Village Panchayat. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as the said point was not considered by the learned Judge, the application for review came to be tiled by the Petitioner which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal by Order dated 16.01.2004. The learned Counsel has taken me through the Order passed in the review application and pointed out that the learned Judge has accepted that the said submission which was advanced by the Petitioner but, however, refused to review the Order on the spacious ground that it could not be considered to be an error apparent on the face of record. Learned Counsel further pointed out that this submission of the Petitioner goes to the root of the matter as maintainability of the application or the Respondent no. 1 to seek information would be in question. Learned Counsel as such submits that the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the Appeal preferred by the Respondent no. 1 afresh after giving due consideration to the said submissions. 4. On the other hand, Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1, has pointed out that though the Respondent no.1 was a foreign citizen at the relevant time she has now been issued by the concerned authorities a certificate that she is an overseas citizen of India. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in any event, at the relevant time, the Respondent no. 1 was entitled to obtain such information. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in any event, at the relevant time, the Respondent no. 1 was entitled to obtain such information. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is no bar under the said Act which forbids a foreign citizen from seeking such information. However, the learned Counsel does not dispute that the Petitioner has raised the contention which was not dealt with by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Judgment. Learned Counsel as such submits that taking into consideration that the Petition is pending before this Court for more than five years and in case the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide the Appeal afresh, the same be directed to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also gone through the records. On perusal of the Orders passed by the learned President of the Tribunal whilst disposing of the review application filed by the Petitioner, I find that the learned Judge has accepted the fact that such contention that the Respondent no. 1 was a foreign citizen and not entitled to seek information sought was raised by the Petitioner. Whilst passing the impugned Orders, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to consider the said contention and give a finding thereon. Non consideration of the said aspect has vitiated the impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside and direct the learned Tribunal to decide the Appeal afresh after nearing the parties in accordance with law. 6. At this stage, Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1, has pointed out that the Respondent desires to produce some additional documents in support of her contention. Learned Counsel further pointed that such documents have been tiled before this Court along with the additional affidavit in rejoinder dated 19.03.2012. Shri Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, however, does not object in case the said affidavit in rejoinder is treated as an additional affidavit in the appeal before the learned Tribunal. But, however, learned Counsel has pointed out that all the documents sought to be produced by the Respondent no. 1 are irrelevant. Shri Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, however, does not object in case the said affidavit in rejoinder is treated as an additional affidavit in the appeal before the learned Tribunal. But, however, learned Counsel has pointed out that all the documents sought to be produced by the Respondent no. 1 are irrelevant. Learned Counsel further pointed out that an opportunity should be reserved for the Petitioner to file an additional reply to the contentions made in the said affidavit. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it appropriate that the Respondent no. 1 be directed to file the said affidavit in rejoinder as an additional affidavit in support of the Appeal preferred before the learned Tribunal. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to file an additional affidavit disputing the contentions made in the said additional affidavit. The question of relevancy of document is left open. 8. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (ii) Information Appeal No. 168 of 2003, is restored to the file of the learned Tribunal, Panaji. (iii) Learned Tribunal is directed to decide the said Appeal afresh in the light of the observations made herein above within one month from the date of the appearance of the parties before the Tribunal, in accordance with law. (iv) All the contentions of the parties are left open. (v) The Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. (vi) The Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 16.07.2012 at 10.00 a.m. and abide with further direction of the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly.