CWP No. 12904 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 12904 of 2009 Date of decision: January 27,2011 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, Haryana for the petitioners. Nemo. for respondent No.1. Mr. K.L. Dhingra, Advocate respondent No.2. ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed to decide the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that one Rajinder Verma son of Shri Ram Chander Verma(respondent No.2) moved an application (Annexure P-1) to the State Public Information Officer (for brevity,”SPIO”), office of Additional Director General of Police,CID, Haryana, Panchkula on 15.12.2008 and sought the following information under the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”):- “1. How many posts of ASI/SI and Inspector Language Stenographers are existing after formation of Haryana as separate State. 2. How many SI/LS remained posted up to now. 3. How many ASI/LS were adjusted between 1989 to 1993 and how may vacancies were lying vacant. 4. The permission, if received from S.S.S. Board, Haryana for CWP No. 12904 of 2009 2 adjustment of these language stenographers between 1989 to 1993, copy of the same be provided. 5. A copy of inquiry report of complaint sent to worthy ADGP/CID(H) on 9.8.2008 by the applicant.” 2. The SPIO informed him vide letter dated 1.1.2009 that the information could not be supplied and the same was exempted from disclosure in view of the notification dated 29.12.2005 issued by the Haryana Government under Section 24(4) of the Act. 3. The appeal filed by respondent No.2 met with the same fate and on the same ground by means of the impugned order dated 13.2.2009 by First Appellate Authority (for short,”FAA”). 4. Aggrieved by the action of SPIO and FAA of non-supply of the information, respondent No.2 filed the second appeal, which was accepted by the State Information Commissioner (for short,”SIC”), Haryana by virtue of the impugned order dated 16.7.2009 (Annexure P-8). The operative part of which is as under:- “1. Information requested by the appellant shall be furnished to him by 15.8.2009 under intimation to the Commission. No addition charges shall be recovered from him for providing this information. 2. With regard to queries at Sr. No. 1 and 2 of the application, the information to be supplied will be limited to the date from which it is available in the department.” 5. 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. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter. To my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition 7. Ex. facie, the main argument of learned State counsel that as the CWP No. 12904 of 2009 3 concerned CID Department has been exempted from the provisions of the Act vide notification dated 29.12.2005 under Section 24(4) of the Act, therefore, the SIC did not have the jurisdiction to give direction to the petitioner to supply the information to respondent No.2, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 8. It is not a matter of dispute that the notification dated 29.12.2005 was issued under Section 24(4) of the Act which envisaged that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organizations, being organizations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. 9. Proviso to this section further escalates that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violation shall not be excluded under the sub section. 10. A combined reading of these provisions would reveal, only that information is exempted, which is directly effecting and co-related to the “Intelligence” and “Security ” of that organization of the State and not otherwise. 11. As is evident from the record that the information sought by respondent No.2 is general in nature, such as number of posts, occupied, vacant and adjusted between 1989-2003 of ASI/SI and Inspector. He has also sought the copy of inquiry report of complaint sent to Additional Director General of Police of Criminal Investigation Department on 9.8.2008 which related to corruption and human rights violation by the recruitment agency. Taking the nature of the information sought by respondent No.2 into focus, the argument of State counsel that the information cannot be supplied in view of the notification, pales into insignificant, particularly, when such information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation are not otherwise covered under the exemption clause of Section 24(4) of the Act as urged on behalf of the petitioners. 12. Therefore, to me, the SIC has rightly directed the petitioners to CWP No. 12904 of 2009 4 supply the indicated information to respondent No.2 vide impugned order and no interference is warranted in this relevant connection in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 14. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. January 27,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No