Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2766 (RAJ)

Banwari Lal S/o Shri. Udmi Ram v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-A, Hanumangarh (Raj. )

2017-12-13

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
JUDGMENT/ORDER : VIJAY BISHNOI, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs : “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction: [1] The respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to furnish the information requested by the petitioner vide his application dated 27.07.2016 (Annex.1) and as pronounced by learned State Information Commission vide judgment dated 30.08.2017 (Annex.6). [2] The respondent may also appropriately saddled with exemplary cost for defying and undermining mandate of the RTI Act; [3] The costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. [4] Any other writ, order or direction which your Lordship may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application to the respondent No. 1 Public Information Officer of the Department of Commercial Taxes at Hanumangarh with a prayer to supply a copy of the survey reports for the period 01.04.2014 to 2016 and the notice issued and the final orders passed in relation to those reports, details of the officers who participated in the survey team from 01.04.2014 to 2016 along with name and designation and notice along with final order passed in relation to reports, details of the members of survey team with their names, post, their property present and earlier when they were appointed, salary slips and their other sources of income for last five years. 3. The said application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 16.08.2016 on the ground that the information sought by the petitioner in point Nos. 1 and 2 does not appear to be in larger public interest and, therefore, the same cannot be supplied as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(H) of Right to Information Act. In respect of point No. 3, the respondent No. 1 has observed that the same relates to personal information of the employees of the department and as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(J) of the Right to Information Act, the same cannot be supplied. In respect of point No. 3, the respondent No. 1 has observed that the same relates to personal information of the employees of the department and as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(J) of the Right to Information Act, the same cannot be supplied. The respondent No. 1 has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212 . 4. The petitioner being aggrieved with rejection of his application, had preferred a first appeal before the appellate authority, however, when the said appeal was not decided within prescribed time, he preferred a second Appeal No. 4693/2017 before Rajasthan Information Commission (for short ‘the Commission’ hereinafter). 5. After receiving the notice from the Commission, the respondent - Commercial Taxes Department submitted its reply, however, the Commission has accepted the said appeal and directed the respondent No. 1 to provide information sought by the petitioner vide his application dated 27.07.2016. 6. The petitioner is claiming that the respondent - department is not supplying the information to him on the ground that copy of the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the Commission has not been received by it. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the order dated 30.08.2017 (Annexure-6) passed by the Commission, this Court is of the opinion that the Commission has not at all taken into consideration the fact that the application filed by the petitioner seeking certain information was dismissed by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 16.08.2016 Without examining the validity of the order dated 16.08.2016, the Commission straightway passed an order to provide information to the petitioner as demanded vide application dated 27.07.2016. The Commission was required to decide whether the rejection of the application by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 16.08.2016 is just and proper or not and then only it could give any direction based on its judgment in respect of the order dated 16.08.2016. 8. In such circumstances, the matter is remanded to the Rajasthan Information Commission with a direction to the Commission to decide the Appeal No. 4693/2017 afresh, after taking into consideration the reply filed on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department and after adjudging the validity of the order dated 16.08.2016 passed by the respondent No. 1. 9. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of.