Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 277 (UTT)

Devendra Kumar Sharma v. Nagar Nigam Kashipur

2016-06-29

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 22.05.2015 (Annexure 3) to the extent it relates to removal of petitioner’s alleged encroachment. A writ in the nature of mandamus has also been sought to direct the parties to maintain status quo in the matter. 2. The order under challenge has been brought on record by the petitioner as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. There are two parts of the impugned order. The first one relates to supply of some information to respondent no. 4. There is no illegality in the impugned order so far as the first part of it is concerned. The petitioner has not challenged it either. The petitioner is aggrieved with the second part of the order which directs that those who have raised unauthorized constructions and have put in Air conditioner/cooler, should be removed as per rules under intimation to the appellant Dayadhar Joshi (respondent no. 4 herein). 3. In any case, the second part of the impugned order has to go. It cannot sustain in the eyes of law. It is on account of this reason that the Court is not inclined to issue notice to respondent no. 4, for, no such direction can be given by departmental appellate authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 4. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. 5. The basic idea of Right to Information Act is to provide the information to all the citizens. Section 3 of the Act says that all the citizens shall have the right to information. Certain obligations have been cast on the public authorities to give such information. Exemption from disclosure of information has also been outlined in the said Act, by way of drafting Section 8. It also provides, inter alia, for third party information, but nowhere it is provided that any authority under the Right to Information Act will usurp the powers of a civil court. On account of this reasons alone the second part of the order impugned is interferrable and is set aside. 6. It also provides, inter alia, for third party information, but nowhere it is provided that any authority under the Right to Information Act will usurp the powers of a civil court. On account of this reasons alone the second part of the order impugned is interferrable and is set aside. 6. Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of at the admission stage by setting aside that part of the order impugned which relates to removal of Air conditioner/cooler or other unauthorized constructions. 7. On the request of learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, as also learned counsel for the State, it is directed that this order shall have no bearing on the ongoing litigation between the parties in the civil court. 8. Since present writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself in the absence of any instructions sought by learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 from respondent nos. 1 and 2, therefore, liberty is granted to all the respondents to move for recall of this order, if they feel that they are aggrieved with the same. [Stay application no. 6514 of 2016 also stands disposed of.]