Alok Mishra and Another vs Central Information Commission and Others

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Sri R.B. Singhal, Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Ashish Kumar Dubey, appears for the respondents. The petitioners are practising advocates of this Court and are residing at 10-B Patrika Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad. They have filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the information sought by the petitioners vide their application dated 14.12.2011 under (The) Right to Information Act, in a time bound stipulated period, as may be fixed by this Court.

The petitioners in their application dated 14.12-2011 sent to the Director/Public Information Officer, North Central Zone Cultural Centre, 14 C.S.P. Singh Road, Allahabad have sought information on fourteen questions. It is alleged that since no reply was received within 30 days as provided in Section 7(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 17.1.2012, and thereafter a second appeal u/s 19 (3) to the Second Appellate Authority. The petitioners, it is alleged have not received the information, giving rise to this writ petition.

In order to appreciate the points raised in this writ petition, the 14 questions asked by the petitioners in Hindi are quoted as below:

We find that the information on most of these questions, would virtually consume the entire staff of the centre for days altogether if not months, to collect and the compile information. We also find that most of the information sought has no concern with the petitioners, nor the petitioners can have or have shown any object or purpose for which they require the said information.

The purpose of Right to Information Act, 2005 is for bringing the transparency in functioning of public authorities. The object and purpose of the Act is to establish confidence in the public functional bodies and to ensure accountability and transparency in discharge of their duties. The Act does not provide for any reason to be given, or to show bona fides in seeking information. The petitioners in this case have not chosen their rights under (The) Right to Information Act by approaching the State Information Commission, if they have not received the information within the time prescribed from the Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority in the department. They have rather approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondents to provide information sought by the petitioners.

Once the petitioners have chosen to seek directions by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is a discretionary constitutional remedy to be used for bona fide purposes they must satisfy the Court, that they have approached the Court with bona fide purposes with clean hands.

We asked learned counsel appearing for the petitioners about their concern and purpose of seeking the information. The petitioners are practising advocates of the High Court. They have neither placed, nor could explain the purpose to seek such information which will virtually block the functioning of the North Central Zone Cultural Centre at Allahabad. The petitioners are unable to give any reason, or object for seeking the information. The counsel appearing for petitioners has chosen to keep quite and did not answer on questions inspite of repeated requests.

Recently we have noticed a large number of writ petitions filed for enforcement of the remedies under the Right to Information Act, which has made it necessary for the Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to review the object and purposes and also the methods opted by certain persons in seeking information. If the Court notices, in exercise of powers of issuing writ as extraordinary remedies, that the object and purpose is not bona fide, it can always refuse the relief.

In the facts and circumstances of the case in which no reason has been given by the petitioners we find that filing of this writ petition, is not for bona fide purposes. Instead of waiting for information to be given or to approach State Information Commission, under (The) Right to Information Act the petitioners have chosen to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking extraordinary remedies, which can be given only to the bona fide litigants. The information sought clearly appears to serve oblique purposes. On the response to our questions put to the counsel, it is apparent that the petitioners as young advocates have filed this writ petition as a proxy for any person who has some axe to grind against the respondents. The petitioners under the Advocates Act, are not supposed to act for such purpose for their clients. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.