IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12580 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 20, 2010 Joginder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State Information Commission, Punjab & 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 8.7.2010 (Annexure P-9). 2. Perusal of order dated 8.7.2010 (Annexure P-9) indicates that respondent No.1 disposed of the case on the ground that applications of old cases of pensioners were probably destroyed in floods. 3. It is brought out that the petitioner apprehends that certain residents of village Mandiana, Block Ghanaur, Tehsil Rajpura, District CWP No.12580 of 2010 [2] Patiala were availing benefit of old age pension scheme of Haryana Government, despite being ineligible for the same. 4. The petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, `RTI Act’) to respondent No.2 i.e. State Public Information Officer, Office of District Social Security Officer, Patiala, to provide certified copies of the records, in relation to five persons, under which old age pension had been given; the pension forms filled up and submitted in the beginning; ration cards; voter cards; income certificates; and resolution passed by the gram panchayat pertaining to the five persons named in the application. 5. It seems that the office of Social Security Officer, Patiala, asked the petitioner to supply copies of bank account(s) and pensioners identity cards of the five persons in relation to whom the information was sought so that the records could be traced out and information supplied under the RTI Act. Learned counsel concedes that information was not given by the petitioner to the authorities as the petitioner did not have the related information sought by the office of District Social Security Officer, Patiala, vide Annexure P-2. 6. Information having not been given by respondent No.2, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Information Commission at CWP No.12580 of 2010 [3] Chandigarh. Response from the authority i.e. respondent No.2, was called for. 7. Perusal of Order dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by the State Information Commissioner, Punjab, indicates that respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 that the information sought relates to old cases which were sanctioned prior to introduction of the system of endorsement by the panchayats. The cases for grant of pension have been sanctioned some time between 1993-2003. The complainant/petitioner however asserted that pension was sanctioned in the year 2005. Be that as it may, the respondent sought time to locate the record of the cases whereupon the matter was adjourned to 1.7.2010. 8. Vide Order dated 8.7.2010 (Annexure P-9), it has been recorded that respondent No.2 stated before the State Information Commission i.e. respondent No.1, that probably the records had been destroyed in the floods and therefore, the cases are not traceable. 10. Collective consideration of the facts indicate that very sketchy information was given by the petitioner in relation to the pension cases which was not sufficient to trace the files. Be that as it may, perusal of Annexure P-8 which has been extracted above, indicates that record relates to the period 1993-2003. Since the record relates to old cases which were sanctioned prior to CWP No.12580 of 2010 [4] introduction of the system of endorsement by the panchayats, the record probably was not preserved. Since the record could not be traced, the respondent conveyed to the authority concerned that the same had been destroyed in the floods. 11. I have taken note of the fact that the petitioner is not affected by the action of the department in releasing old age pension to the five persons in the context of whom the information has been sought under the RTI Act. 12. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no relief can be given to the petitioner in writ jurisdiction. It is not the case of the petitioner that on account of malafide reasons, the record was not given or that the stand of respondent No.2 to the effect that record had been lost, is baseless. Nothing has been indicated by the petitioner that the documents in relation to sanction of old age pension to the five persons named in the application were available. Respondent No.1 has accepted the stand of the authorities to the effect that record has been lost. In such circumstances, this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot formulate an opinion that the authorities had refused access to any information requested under the RTI Act or that the authorities had given incomplete, misleading or false information. If that were so, respondent No.1 would have exercised powers under CWP No.12580 of 2010 [5] Section 18 of the RTI Act. 13. Provision of Section 18 of the RTI Act empowers the Information Commission to receive and enquire into a complaint from any person in case access to information has been refused; who has not given response to a request for information or access to information within time limit specified under the Act; who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under the Act. The Commission, however, has not found any such circumstance to be existing in the matter and therefore, has accepted the plea of respondent No.2 that the record had been destroyed. In such circumstances, in writ jurisdiction, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for. 14. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 20, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?