Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 383 (UTT)

District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sakeel Ahmad

2016-07-22

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this petition, petitioner has sought quashing of orders dated 26.01.2007, 05.12.2007 and 13.02.2007 passed by the learned Chief Information Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 3. The orders, which are under challenge, are passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, where, in one of the orders, he held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is applicable in the case of the petitioner; whereas by other orders, petitioner was directed to produce documents before him on certain dates. 4. Today, when the matter was being argued by the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, conceded that the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are applicable in respect of the petitioner. He, however, submitted that the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner for supplying the relevant documents before him is not correct, in view of the fact that the petitioner, who is a Cooperative Bank, has confidential relations with the customers and the documents sought, cannot be produced before the Commission. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, submitted that the information sought have direct relation with the information seeker and these are not third party information, therefore, his argument should not be accepted. 6. I have perused the order, by which the petitioner was asked to produce the documents. I think that, at this stage, the case should be remanded back to the Chief Information Commissioner for deciding the points, which are being raised by the petitioner. It will be open for the petitioner to raise all his grounds before the Information Commission and it is also open for the respondent no.1 to file reply to the same. 7. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will file his response before the Information Commission within a period of one month from today. It is directed that in case, such objection is filed, the copy of the same will be supplied to the complainant. The Commission, before passing any order relating to supplying of the documents, will hear both the parties. 8. It is directed that in case, such objection is filed, the copy of the same will be supplied to the complainant. The Commission, before passing any order relating to supplying of the documents, will hear both the parties. 8. The Commission is requested to decide the second appeal at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 9. With the directions as above, the writ petition is disposed of finally. There will be no order as to costs.