Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 986 (HP)

Jitender Bhardwa v. Kamal Thakur

2012-12-17

KURIAN JOSEPH, SANJAY KAROL

body2012
JUDGMENT Justice Sanjay Karol (Oral) State of Himachal Pradesh, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla is impleaded as party respondent No.3. 2. Petitioner Jitender Bhardwaj has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:- (i)Directions may kindly be issued to the State Govt. to frame necessary guidelines so that general public may seek redressal of their grievances and Govt. work may not be disturbed. (ii) That the R-I may be burdened with cost of Rs.20 lac as damaged, in favour of the petitioner. 3.Under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), petitioner applied for certain information from the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Solan.When petitioner approached the concerned Branch, he found the Officer designated under the Act not present on the seat. While the petitioner was waiting one Shri Kamal Kumar-respondent No.1 who was also posted in the said Branch, objected to the presence of the petitioner in the room. This allegedly resulted into exchange of certain heated words between the two, as a result of which, petitioner filed a complaint before the competent authority.Assistant Commissioner from the office of the Deputy Commissioner Solan conducted an enquiry, after affordingdue and dequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned and submitted his report, advising both the parties to exhibit “decent behaviour and conduct in public places”. Also Shri Kamal Kumar (respondent No.1) was advised “to maintain temperament while dealing with the public”. Hence petitioner has filed the present petition. 4.When the writ petition came up for hearing on 11.12.2012, we had requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to seek instructions as to whether petitioner had actually received the information he wanted to get. We are informed that required information actually stands received. 5.In so far as the petitioner’s prayer for compensation is concerned, it is a settled position of law that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse of such remedies as are available to him in accordance with law. 6.With regard to petitioner’s prayer (i), we feel that certain directions need to be issued. 7.The Act was enacted pursuant to the policy decision taken by the Government of India of ensuring greater and effective access of information to a common man. 6.With regard to petitioner’s prayer (i), we feel that certain directions need to be issued. 7.The Act was enacted pursuant to the policy decision taken by the Government of India of ensuring greater and effective access of information to a common man. The right given to a commoan man is of getting information under the control of Public authorities. The object was to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every Public Authority/functionary. An informed citizenry and transparency in functioning would only help in eradicating the evil of corruption as also ensuring that persons holding public Offices are not only accountable to the people of the country but discharge their duties in accordance with law in a just and fair manner. In order to ensure that smooth and easy access of information is made to the public, the Act provides for establishment and appointment of certain functionaries. Section 4 of the Act casts obligations upon public authorities to make available facilities to the citizens for obtaining information. The Public Information Officers are appointed under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. 8.In the State of Himachal Pradesh, by virtue of provisions of Section 15 of the Act, there is a State Information Commission with the Chief Information Commissioner heading the same. The designated Public Information Officer owes certain duties to the public and by virtue of Section 18 of the Act, has powers to take certain actions/ measures as also monitor the implementation of various provisions of the Act and its various functionaries. 9.The State Government, by virtue of the provisions of Section 27 of the Act has the power of framing Rules for discharge of duties by the various functionaries under the Act. 10.Significantly the Central Government has framed Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 12 of the Act. Regulation 4(xiv) reads as under:- “xiv. The Registrar shall communicate the decisions, orders or directions of the Commission to the concern person/persons, and all such communications signed or authenticated by the Registrar or under his authority shall be deemed to be the communication from the Commission.” 11.Regulations, if not already framed, on similar lines can also be framed by the State Government. 12.Public functionaries in public offices, under all circumstances are required to maintain good behaviour, more particularly while dealing with public. 12.Public functionaries in public offices, under all circumstances are required to maintain good behaviour, more particularly while dealing with public. They are the face of the Government and its functionaries. They are meant to serve the people. They are required to maintain good temperament and deal with humanity, patience and show perseverance while handling public affairs. 13.Significantly, the Apex Court in Praveen Bhatia vs. Unionof India and others, (2009) 4 SCC 225 , has reiterated the importance and significance of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which provides that every Government servant shall at all times maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant. 14.With regard to the conduct of a Government servant, the Central Government appointed a Committee and in Ninety-third Report (1965-66), the Committee make the following recommendations:- “At the same time, the Committee are constrained to mention the general feeling among the people of lack of the spirit of service expected of the members of the public services and also of the dilatory methods and tactics in their dealings with the public. The Committee feel that these lapses on the part of the public services very often compel the public to seek the intervention of the legislators or public men of importance for the disposal of even matters of a routine nature. The Committee would like Government to bring home to the services that their first obligations is to render service to, and not merely to exercise authority over the public. An improvement in the attitude and conduct of services towards the common man is necessary for the people’s active co-operation in the stupendous task of building the nation through developmental planning and its visible to the common man. The Committee hope that the services would realize the particular obligations of the Welfare State Undertakings’ planned development through democratic methods for which voluntary co-operation of the people is essential and which can be enlisted only through courteous behaviour of the public services at all levels. The Committee, therefore, cannot too strongly stress the need for prompt and courteous service to the public which, in turn, through courteous and helpful attitude, can be educated to act towards the services in a responsible, restrained and courteous manner. The Committee, therefore, cannot too strongly stress the need for prompt and courteous service to the public which, in turn, through courteous and helpful attitude, can be educated to act towards the services in a responsible, restrained and courteous manner. The Committee hope that Government would be ever watchful in ensuring that Government machinery as a whole and particularly such segments of it as come in direct contact with the public are helpful in attitude and quick in disposal of cases and that deterrent and prompt action is taken against discourteous behaviour and dilatory tactics.” 15. These recommendations were accepted by the Government of India and O.M. No.14/9/66-Ests. (A)-I, dated 3.8.1966 was issued in this regard. 16. In this backdrop, we are of the considered view that certain guidelines/Regulations need to be framed/issued by the competent authority under the Act, for regulating the time and place of presence of public so as to ensure that on a given point of time, public at large is not made to wait and immediately attended to and their requests dealt with promptly. There are sufficient powers with the functionaries under the Act to take appropriate action in this regard. 17.Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/No.3 to take action for effective implementation of the provisions of the Act and frame necessary guidelines/ Rules/ Regulations and issue instructions. Necessary action in view of our aforesaid observations shall positively be taken within three months from today.