Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1049 (GUJ)

Thakor Sardarji Bhagvanji v. State of Gujarat

2014-09-24

R.P.DHOLARIA, V.M.SAHAI

body2014
JUDGMENT : V.M. Sahai, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant-original petitioner challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17-6-2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8274 of 2014, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. A short question that arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether a B.P.L. card-holder is entitled to apply for certified copies of the index as well as registered documents along with the copies of Annexures thereto for a period of seven years i.e. from 2005 to 2011, which is about 11,780 registered documents, free of cost, under proviso to Sec. 7(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 without disclosing as to whether his requirement is for any larger public interest as the documents demanded by him are public documents of third parties. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the appellant-original petitioner made an application in October, 2011 under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') seeking information from the Information Officer and Sub-Registrar, Siddhapur. By virtue of the said application, the petitioner demanded certified copies of all the documents with their annexures which were presented and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar in the span of seven years i.e. from 2005 to 2011. By the same application, he also prayed to supply certified copies of the index (wherein entry of registered documents are made) in respect of all documents, which came to be registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Siddhapur during aforesaid span of about seven years i.e. from 2005 to 2011. The Information Officer in the office of the Sub-Registrar found that during the period in question i.e. from 2005 to 24-10-2011 about 11,780 documents were registered. 2.1. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner demanded certified copies of about 11,780 documents and certified copies for equal number (i.e. 11,780) of index, the respondent-authority calculated the fees, which were payable by the appellant-original petitioner if he wanted to have copies of the documents. According to the calculation made by the respondent-authority, the appellant-original petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 38,87,400/- including the copies of the documents demanded by him. However, the petitioner demanded the said documents free of any cost/fees. According to the calculation made by the respondent-authority, the appellant-original petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 38,87,400/- including the copies of the documents demanded by him. However, the petitioner demanded the said documents free of any cost/fees. Since the fee was not paid by the appellant-original petitioner, he preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 3-Appellate Authority and Inspector of Registration. The said appeal was dismissed on 3-1-2012. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-original petitioner again filed an appeal before the respondent No. 4-Chief Information Commissioner and the said appeal was also dismissed on 1-2-2014 on the ground that the information/documents related to personal information of third party can be made available only if larger public interest warrants the disclosure and since the petitioner has not mentioned, in his application any details reflecting that the documents/information related to third party is demanded for public interest, and therefore, the respondents were right to refuse the request of the petitioner in light of the provision under Sec. 8 and Sec. 11 of the Act. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant is a person, who belongs to below poverty line strata, and therefore, in view of Sec. 7(5) of the Act, he is not required to pay any fees. Further he urged that in view of Sec. 6(2) of the Act, he can seek for any information without disclosing any reason for the same. 4. We repeatedly asked Mr. Vijay H. Nangesh, learned Counsel for the appellant to show the reason as to why the documents registered for seven years are required by the appellant, who belongs to B.P.L. category. Mr. Nangesh could not give any reason and repeatedly argued that there is no requirement in the Act to disclose any reason. The appellant has not stated either in the petition or in the appeal that he is a public spirited citizen and has filed any public interest litigation in the Court. 5. The learned Single Judge has succinctly considered all the provisions of law and also the question as to whether the registered documents of other persons could be demanded by the petitioner and whether the petitioner is liable to pay any fees or not and has come to the conclusion that the appellant-original petitioner has failed to make out any ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by competent authorities. The request made by the petitioner has been rejected by the authorities on the ground that the petitioner is not seeking the information for establishing any public interest. 6. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it cannot be disputed that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, right to seek information is a fundamental right flowing from Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the case of Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1973 SC 60 and in the case of State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, reported in 1975 (4) SCC 428 and in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1982 SC 149 and in the case of Secretary, Ministry of I. & B., Government of India v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal, reported in 1995 (2) SCC 161 and in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, reported in 2004 (2) SCC 476 . The Act replaces a culture of secrecy and introduce a culture of openness. The information sought under the Act intends to promote an accountability and transparency. However, whether private documents without impinging upon the right to privacy could be exempted from public disclosure is a question which is to be decided in this petition. Even if this information may not be treated to be a personal information as the documents are normally made available for inspection and search to public at large and also allowing through copies by paying requisite fees, then the question arises regarding the information asked for by the appellant-original petitioner, who belongs to B.P.L. category, requires large number of manpower and human hours to prepare and to deliver the said information to the appellant and the expenses involved upon the public exchequer is quantified to the extent of Rs. 38,87,400/- which was demanded but not paid by the appellant. He has also refrained from disclosing the reasons as to whether such voluminous information is required for any public purpose. Another factors which arise for consideration is whether it is justified to part with such information at the cost of public exchequer and whether the request made by the appellant for supplying such voluminous information amounts to abuse of the process of law. 7. Another factors which arise for consideration is whether it is justified to part with such information at the cost of public exchequer and whether the request made by the appellant for supplying such voluminous information amounts to abuse of the process of law. 7. At the outset, it is certain that the information sought for by the appellant contains 11,780 documents which was registered during the period from 2005 to 2011. Since, the appellants belongs to B.P.L. category, the cost of servicing information, mainly copies of huge documents, as per prescribed fee rules would be very high and certainly will have a impact on the public exchequer. The respondents have set up a machinery for granting certified copies of registered documents upon depositing appropriate fees and they also have provisions for inspection and search of such registered documents. Since, the information sought is voluminous, it would indeed be uneconomical to make copies of every piece of paper contained in the relevant files. In our opinion, the appellant-original petitioner claiming to be a B.P.L. card-holder demanding voluminous information without assigning any reason is itself indicative of abuse of process of law. The legislation has mandated that B.P.L. card-holder are exempted from paying any fees for seeking information under the Act so that the persons who are financially weak may not be deprived for want of such information and equality may prevail amongst all the sections of the society. Therefore, in their wisdom the legislation has conferred this right to B.P.L. card-holder to have excess to information free of cost. However, photocopying such documents will certainly kill thousands of human hours as well as manpower and supplying such voluminous information under the guise of B.P.L. at the cost of public exchequer cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be the object of any legislation. Moreover, acceding to such request may be akin to opening Pandora's Box. 8. It is settled proposition that the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, encompasses the right to impart and receive information. The Right to Information has been stated to be one of the important facets of proper governance. However, like any other freedom, this freedom also has limitations. The value of any freedom is determined by the extent to which the citizens are able to enjoy such freedom. The Right to Information has been stated to be one of the important facets of proper governance. However, like any other freedom, this freedom also has limitations. The value of any freedom is determined by the extent to which the citizens are able to enjoy such freedom. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution itself is controlled by reasonable restrictions imposed by the State by enacting various laws from time to time. 9. Access to information is a statutory right. This right, as indicated above, is subject to certain constitutional and statutory limitations. The Act itself spells out exempted information as well as the areas where the Act would be inoperative. The competent authorities have been vested with the power to decline furnishing of an information under certain circumstances and in the specified situations. For disclosure of information, which involves the question of prejudice to a third party, the concerned authority is required to issue notice to the third party who can make a representation and such representation is to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thus, it involves an adjudicatory process wherein the exercise of powers and passing of the orders by the authorities concerned under the provisions of the Act cannot be arbitrary. It has to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the procedure evolved by such authority. It is also required to bear in mind as to how far the right to information is affected where information sought for is denied or whether the information asked for is exempted or impinges upon the right to privacy or where it falls in the 'no go area' of applicability of the Act. It is not mandatory for the authorities to allow all requests for information in a routine manner. The Act imposes an obligation upon the authorities to examine each matter seriously being fully cautious of its consequences and effects on the rights of others. It may be a simple query for information but can have far-reaching consequences upon the right of a third party or an individual with regard to whom such information is sought. Undue inroad into the right to privacy of an individual which is protected under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India or any other law in force would not be permissible. Undue inroad into the right to privacy of an individual which is protected under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India or any other law in force would not be permissible. However, in the present case, the appellant has asked for copies of registered documents belonging to various other parties and in that case, it would be next to impossible to issue notices to all such parties and to adjudicate their matters. 10. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the orders passed by the authorities below and rejected the claim of the appellant-original petitioner as the application made by the appellant is nothing but an abuse of process of the Act and appears to have been made by the appellant-original petitioner on instruction of someone which has not been disclosed. There is no denial of information to the appellant and that the authorities have acted properly as per the provisions of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merits in this appeal. This appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed