CWP No. 10067 of 2010 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 10067 of 2010 Date of decision: January 21,2011 First Appellate Authority and another ..Petitioners. Versus Chief Information Commissioner and another ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Narender Singh, DAG, Punjab for the petitioners Mr.Samrat Singh Rao, in person respondent No.2. ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Shri Samrat Singh Rao, Advocate( respondent No.2) filed an application (Annexure P-1) on 3.9.2009 under the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) with the State Public Information Officer (for brevity,”SPIO”), CID, Haryana, Panchkula requesting detailed information contained therein. He has attached the requisite fees of ` 250/- in the form of Postal Order along with the application. The information was not supplied to him on the ground that CID of Haryana has been exempted from the provisions of RTI Act in view of notification dated 29.12.2005 (Annexure P-7). The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the First Appellate Authority (for short,”FAA”). 2. Aggrieved by the action of SPIO and FAA, respondent No.2 filed the second appeal, which was accepted by the State Information Commissioner (for short,”SIC”), Haryana vide impugned order dated 5.5.2010 (Annexure P-8). CWP No. 10067 of 2010 2 3. The FAA and SPIO did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-8), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition. 5. The solitary argument of learned State counsel that as the concerned C.I.D. department has been exempted from the provisions of the Act vide notification dated 29.12.2005(Annexure P-7), therefore, the SIC did not have the jurisdiction to give direction to the petitioners to supply the information, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record that respondent No.2 sought the following information vide application (Annexure P-1):- “That in view of my letter dated 4.7.08:- a) Supply information, as to what action has been taken or suggested against persons, for grabbing and constructing building illegally on the Govt. land, situated and touching on the wall of the Arya Girls High School (Recognized) B.C. Bazar, Ambala Cantt. Supply attested copy. b) Supply Investigation report of the inquiry team of Shri Narender ASI of the CM. Flying Squad. Supply information attested copy. c) During inquiry statement of all persons recorded including my statement recorded on 13.7.08 of the inquiry team of Narender Rana ASI supply attested copies of all. d) All type of record collected by the inquiry team. Supply attested copies. e) Please supply, the final report of ADGP/CID sent for final action/disposal of the matter in question. Supply also, this information in the form of the attested copy. f) Supply information of connection of your letter/report No. 52/10/2009-1 Vigilance-II dated 6.3.09 what action has been CWP No. 10067 of 2010 3 taken by the Financial and Principal Secretary, Haryana Govt. Urban Local Body Department, reported to your good self.” 7. What is not disputed here is that the notification (Annexure P-7) was issued under Section 24(4) of the Act, which postulates that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organization being organization established by the State Government as that Government may from time to time by notification in the official gazette specify. 8. Proviso to this section posits that the information pertaining to the allegation of corruption and human right violation shall not be excluded under the sub section. The words “Such Intelligence” and “Security ” in this section are of great considerable significance in this context. 9. A co-joint reading of these provisions would escalate, only that information is exempted which is directly co-related and relatable to intelligence and security of the State and not otherwise. Moreover, the information sought by respondent No.2 pertains to the allegations of corruption and against those persons who have grabbed and illegally constructed building on the Government land and action taken against them on the complaint of the complaint. Such information pertaining to allegation of corruption and human rights violations are not otherwise covered under the exemption clause as urged on behalf of petitioners. 10. There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed from different angle. The SIC has negatived the objection/plea of the petitioners, vide impugned order (Annexure P-8),the operative part of which is as under:- “ This matter has been carefully considered by the Commission. Attention can be invited to the earlier decision of the Commission in a few cases involving the CID Department including the one quoted by Appellant wherein it has been clearly held that the exemption granted by the virtue of notification dated 29.12.05 cannot be a blanket exemption for the department. The exemption from the public disclosure will apply only to those matter dealt by CWP No. 10067 of 2010 4 the department which are of a sensitive nature involving security of the State, public order and related matters. In the instant case no such issues are involved and the matter definitely pertains to one involving alleged illegal occupation of Government land in the vicinity of Arya Girls High School, Ambala Cantt. It has been admitted by the department that they conducted an enquiry, recorded the statements of some persons and have also sent a report to the Secretary, Local Bodies under these circumstances there is no question of claiming any exemption with regard to any matter connected with this inquiry by the department. In the interest of transparency the information needs to be furnished particularly when it involves a matter of public importance. The Commission is of the view that the stand of the department claiming exemption from disclosure on the basis of notification dated 29.12.05 has no jurisdiction in this case. In view of what has been stated above the following directions are hereby given in this case:- 1. The information sought by the appellant along with the statements of witnesses recorded during the inquiry as well as the copy of the inquiry report sent to the State Government shall be furnished free of cost to the appellant by 31.5.10. 2. A compliance report shall be sent to the Commission by 5.6.10.” 11. Meaning thereby, the SIC has recorded valid reasons in this relevant connection in the impugned order. Such articulate order containing valid reasons cannot legally be set aside in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this court, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned order by learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, the same deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. CWP No. 10067 of 2010 5 13. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. January 21,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No