AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent dated 12.06.2009 directing the
petitioner to supply the information to the second respondent.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an aided College and is not a public authority. The second respondent submitted a letter dated
28.04.2008, seeking information in respect of as many as 14 items that too from 1991. As the Right to Information Act came into force from
2005, the second respondent is not entitled to call for information earlier to that period and therefore the documents were not given to the second
respondent. The second respondent preferred an appeal before the first respondent and without hearing the petitioner the first respondent passed
an impugned order directing the petitioner to supply the materials asked by the second respondent and that order is challenged in this writ petition.
Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent requested certain documents from 1991 and Right to
Information Act came into effect only in the year 2005 and therefore the second respondent has no right to call for certain documents which came
in to existence prior to 2005. He further submitted that the first respondent without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, immediately on receipt of
the petition by the second respondent directed the petitioner to furnish all those documents requested by the second respondent and therefore the
order is liable to be set aside.
I am not able to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding the first contention that the information relating to period earlier to
the coming into force of Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be given. The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted to declare that every
person has got right to know the information from the authorities and it is a substantial legislation recognising the right available to citizen. If the
arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is accepted that no information or documents earlier to 2005 cannot be asked for by a person,
the purpose of enacting the legislation would become meaningless. Further, as per Section 2(j) of the Act of Right to Information is as follows:
(j) right to Information"" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and
includes the right to-
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the from of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such
information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
Section 2(j) does not say that only information after the publication of the Act, can be called for. Section 3 of the Act, declares that subject to
the provisions of the Act all citizen shall have right to information and there is no such prohibition that information earlier to 2005 cannot be given.
Therefore, being a substantial law enacted for the benefit of the people it cannot be stated that the Act cannot be given retrospective effect and
documents or information prior to the passing of the Act, cannot be given. It is not as if the Act is given retrospective effect by directing the
petitioner to give information about the documents prior to 2005. As stated supra, the Act only declares the right of the citizen to have access to
information and it cannot be confined to those information which are available after the enactment of the Act, and a citizen is entitled to call for any
information for any period even though it is earlier to the enactment of the Act.
The next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that without giving notice to him the first respondent has passed the order. In
other words it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner without affording an opportunity to the petitioner the order was passed
and hence it is in violation of Principles of natural justice and on that ground it is liable to be set aside.
As per Section 6 of the Act, a person who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make requisition in writing before the
appropriate person and as per Section 7 of the Act, and on receipt of the request u/s 6 of the Act, the Public Information Officer as expeditiously
as possible and in any case within 30 days receipt of the request either private information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or
rejected the request for information in any of the reason specified in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act, does not deals with the right
to give opportunity before directing the person furnishing the information. Further, the question of violation of principles of natural justice arises only
when a person is affected by the passing of an order or any civil consequences followed by that order. In this case, the first respondent has only
directed the petitioner to supply information along with a report to the State Information Commissioner with the explanation for the delay in
supplying of the same. It is not the case of the petitioner that the information sought for by the second respondent are exempted from disclosure as
per Section 8 of the Act. Further, the petitioner also comes under the category of public authority as defined in Section 2(h)(ii) of the act, namely,
non -Government organisation substantially financed. Admittedly, the petitioner''s Institution is a Government aided Institution. Therefore, it is
substantially financed by the Government and comes within the definition of public authority and therefore the first respondent has got the power to
direct the petitioner to supply the information requested by the second respondent. However, it is open to the petitioner to call upon the second
respondent to pay the requisite fee for supplying the information and on that ground that the first respondent cannot deny the information called for
by the second respondent unless the petitioner is able to show that such information cannot be given as per Section 8 of the Act.
Hence, I do not find any merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed . No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition
is also dismissed.