IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13211 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 28, 2010 Palwinder Sondhi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Central Information Commission & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 19.5.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. 2. It transpires that the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, `Act’) before the Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana Regional Unit, Ludhiana, seeking certain information. The said authority CWP No.13211 of 2010 [2] viz. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana Regional Unit, Ludhiana, vide Order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P-2) responded to the petitioner that her application has been analysed and information requested, cannot be supplied as Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is exempt under Section 24(1) of the Act. 3. The petitioner, it seems, filed a complaint/grievance under Section 18 of the Act that has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. The Central Information Commission, vide Order dated 19.5.2010 (Annexure P-4), after examining the matter, decided that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is an exempted organisation under Section 24(1) of the Act. Except the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human right violations, application could not be entertained. The complainant had not raised any issue relating to human rights violations. The complaint, under the circumstances, has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the authority i.e. Central Information Commission was required in law to deal with the issue on merits. The order, therefore, is unreasonable and is liable to be quashed. CWP No.13211 of 2010 [3] 5. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. 6. Legality of the impugned order is required to be considered in the context of application (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner under Section 6 read with Section 7(i) of the Act. 7. In application, Annexure P-1, the petitioner who is stated to be wife of Parshotam Lal Sondhi, projected that Parshotam Lal Sondhi was arrested under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on 23.3.2008 by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Amritsar and presently is behind bars. So as to prove him innocent, contest the case properly and to defend the case of Parshotam Lal Sondhi effectively, the information is required and the same is related with life and liberty of Parshotam Lal Sondhi. 8. The information sought in the application (Annexure P-1) is in the following terms:- “3. Please provide the details and certified copies of the following information from and under the office of DRI, Amritsar:- a. Details of all office concerns including (Gazetted and Non gazetted) working in the office and under the office of DRI, Amritsar with their name, father’s name, address and their designations; CWP No.13211 of 2010 [4] b. Details and copies of the all office concerns who were on duty on 22/03/2008 and 23/03/2008, 24/03/2008 and their attendance Register and any other register from where their presence on the duty is ascertained, confirmed; 4. Please provide the details of all the persons including Gazetted and Non Gazetted officials, office concerns with their name, Father’s name and their designation, and job profile having any concerns, connection, association, link, with case of Sh. Parshotam Lal Sondhi son of Sh. Joginder Pal Sondhi who was arrested on dated 23/03/2008 by the DRI Amritsar; a. Please provide the details of the persons to whom the telephones facilities including mobiles phone (including their Phone Number and mobile phone Number) allowance in the said respect are provided; b. Please provide the telephone Numbers including mobile phones Numbers provided to each persons of the office concerns who have connection, association, links, involvement in the and with case mentioned in the Para 3 of this application; c. Please provide the details of the mobile phones Numbers either issued from the department or of their personal numbers used by the all the office concerns (DRI) having links, dealings, association, with the case mentioned above in Para No.3 of this application and who were available in the office at the time arrest of Sh. Parshotam Lal Sondi on dated 23/03/08; d. Details of the senior officers with name, address, designation and, their phone Numbers to whom office Concerns of DRI Amritsar team has informed regarding Parshotam Lal Sondi 22/03/2008 and 23/03/2008 and its arrest and development, inquiry, investigation in the case upto 24/03/2008; e. Please provide the details with time and duration and with their proper location from where office concerns of the DRI, Amritsar have informed their seniors regarding Parshotam Lal Sondi and his case during the period 22/03/2008, 23/03/2008 and 24/03/2008. f. Please provide the details name, father’s name, address and mobile Numbers of the witness as on 22/03/2008, 23/03/2008 and 24/03/2008 in CWP No.13211 of 2010 [5] reference to the search and arrest of Sh. Parshotam Lal Sondhi;” 9. Section 24(1) of the Act reads as under:- “24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.- (1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelli- gence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organi- sations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the alle- gations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of hu- man rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and not- withstanding anything contained in section 7, such infor- mation shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.” 10. It is not in dispute that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is one of the organisations in the second schedule at Serial No.3. 11. Impugned order (Annexure P-4) makes it explicit and clear that the issue raised by the petitioner does not relate to human rights violation or corruption. It thus transpires that the request for information has been considered by the respondents in terms of provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act. 12. The information sought by the petitioner is roving and general with wide amplitude. The petitioner seeks details of a CWP No.13211 of 2010 [6] number of officers: their parentage, addresses, telephone numbers, their duty roster, their associated links etc., as is made out from the extracted portion of application given hereinabove for exact reference. 13. It is not in dispute that since the information is sought in a particular context viz. prosecution of Parshotam Lal Sondhi, the material to be used by the prosecuting agency would have been served on the defence by way of report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is relevant to mention that during the trial, the petitioner would have a right to either bring evidence in defence or to cross examine the witnesses brought by the prosecution. 14. Be that as it may, in the context of information sought, I find no fault with the reasons given in the impugned order for not supplying the information as the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act clearly provide that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to the DRI, it being an organisation established by the Central Government. Surely the information sought does not relate to corruption and human right violations as is evident from the nature of information sought. The order under the circumstances does not suffer from arbitrariness. CWP No.13211 of 2010 [7] The order has been passed by an authority having competent jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, no case for judicial review of the order passed by the statutory authority is made out. 15. In view of the above, no interference in writ jurisdiction is called for. 16. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 28, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?