Smt. Usha Agrawal vs Uttarakhand Information Commission & another

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. (ORAL)

In the State of Uttarakhand, there is a prohibition (under Section 157-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as it

is applicable in the State of Uttarakhand), for a Scheduled Caste person to sell his land to a non-Scheduled Caste person, unless he has obtained the

permission to do that from the concerned District Magistrate.

In this case, information were sought by respondent no.2 from the Public Information Officer of Ramnagar, District Nainital relating to certain

period where the land has been sold by a Scheduled Caste person to a non-Scheduled Caste and their names. Since the information as sought by

respondent no. 2 was not provided to him, he preferred the first appeal before the appellate authority. Thereafter, the information provided to

respondent no.2 was not to his satisfaction, he filed the second appeal before the State Information Commissioner. The State Information

Commissioner vide its order dated 15.03.2018 directed the District Magistrate, Nainital to conduct an enquiry into the matter as to whether the land of

a Scheduled Caste person is being purchased by a non-Scheduled Caste person. It appears that in turn, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramnagar has

sent a letter dated 18.06.2018 to the petitioner, by which the petitioner has to apprise the authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nainital whether

she had purchased the land from a non-Scheduled Caste person, as is perhaps the allegation. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ

petition before this Court.

According to the petitioner, she has not purchased the land from a Scheduled Caste person.

There seems to be no difficulty if the petitioner apprises the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as to the source and the vendor from whom she had

purchased the land. The petitioner, however, challenges the very jurisdiction of the State Information Commissioner who has directed the authorities to

conduct an enquiry into the matter.

It is true that under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, there is no specific provision which gives power to the State

Information Commissioner to direct an enquiry into the matter, and therefore, this proposition is acceptable that in case such a direction is made, the

authorities are not bound to follow such an order but having said that, this Court cannot loose the sight of the fact that the State Information

Commissioner is a statutory authority who has made these directions on the basis of certain information. At least when such an order is passed the

concerned District Magistrate or the authority to whom such directions are being made, after being satisfied as to the veracity of such an allegation, is

always empowered to take an independent decision. Therefore, though the State Information Commissioner does not have powers directing the

Officer to conduct an enquiry as is being done here, yet such a direction can always be considered as “advisory†in nature though the concerned

authority is at liberty to apply its own mind and take an independent decision.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being unduly harassed by the authorities. This apprehension of the petitioner

seems to be not well founded. In case the petitioner submits all the relevant records either in person or through her representative, she shall not be

unduly harassed. Let the petitioner comply with the order.

In view of the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed.