^ /4P^ HIGHCQURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (O No. 4313 of 2008 Petitioner ResDondents Versus Post for Judgment on/fAugust, 2008 Tritiya Verg Shnskiya Karmachari 6rih Nirnrtun Sahkari Samiti Maryadit The Chhattisqarh Information Commission & others •»*• Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ua ENHBlc ^v"'""~"~"~:s^. .^r ~^. '"^ u^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUK Writ Petition (O No. 4313 of 2008 Petitioner Respondents Versus 2. 3. Tritiya Vera Shaskiyc Karmachan ©rih Nirman Sahkari Samiti AAar/adit, Throu9h President Roshini Kumar Thakur, S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Thakur, aged about 53 years, Jawahar Nagar, Durg, Dist. Dui-g (C.5.) The Chhattisgarh Information Commission, Nirmai Chhoya Bhawan, Meera &arar ftoad, Shdnkar Nagar, Raipur (C.6.) The Joint Registrar, Shahkari Sansthaye, t5ur9, bist. Durg (C.&.) Shri C. K. Sahu, House No. 42 JawcAar Nagar, Durg, bist. &ur9 (C.6.) WRIT PETITtON UN&ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION' OF INDM Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri R. S. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. ^\ -?vr t^. ?° Ft UK U C K sl. (Pnssed on this II^Wf of August. 2008) 1. The petitioner (Tritiya Verg Shaskiya Karmachari 6rih Nirman Sahkari Sam?ti Maryadit) is a society of Class-HI Sovernment employees, registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act 1960. The petitioner challenges the legality and "alidity of the order dated 23 June, 2008, passed by - the Chhatt-iS9arh Information Commission (for short 'the Commission') in Appeal Case No. 175/2008 to the extent of u 4 observation of the Commission that -the provisions of -1+ie Right to Information AcT, 2005 (for short 'the Act, 2005') are opplicabie to the petitioner society. 2. The facts, in nutshell, cre that the respendent No. 3 sought for certain information from •Hie petitioner-Society. The respondent No. 3 bsing aggrieved by non-supply of the documents by •tiia Society preferred an appea! before the Commission. Th® Commission, although dismissed the oppeat, however observed that the provisions of the Act, 2005 are applicable to the petitioner-society. Thus, this petition challenges the observation of the Commission to the extent of " 3RT: ?>H WEIT? IR qg arfSrt^pTii g<Rr .aPrt^ q? vK^ st-TT IFq ftRfT uirar 3. Shri R. 5. Patel, learned counse! <ippearin9 for the petitioner submits that the Commission though has dismissed the oppeat but ths observation, as stated above, \s not proper- and justified. Thus this petition, stating that the above stated observation with regard to the applicabitity of the provisions of the Act, 2005 to the petitioner-society was made without !ookin9 into the documents asto whether the petitioner-society was obtaining any government aid or is a government society. Thus, the same observation deserves to the delsted/expunged. 4. I hwe heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documenta appended thereto. ^^S'sfei. •^¥:^-,- 5. It is well settled that if a case hos become infructuous on the facts of the case cnd question remains to be decided for academic purpose, it is not necessary to examine the case. In the matter of Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Incoms-tax. Rajasthcn and another , the Supreme Court observed as under : "12. .........We take the view that this Court should not make any pronouncement on any question which is not strictly necessary for the disposal of 1+ie particutar case before it. We, therefore, confine our attention to Art. 14 and proceed to discuss th® question on that footiiig." 6. In the matter of Dhartipakar- Madan Lo! Agarwai Vs. Rajiv Sandhi their Lordships observed as under :- " 4. ..........In this view 9rounds roised in 1+ie petition for setting aside the election of the respondent have been rendered academic. Court should not undertake to decide an issue unless it is a livin9 issue between the parties. If an issue is pure!y academic in that its decision one way or the other would hnvs no impaet on the position of the parties, it would be waste of public time to engage itself in deciding it. Lord Viscount Simon in his speech in tiie House of Lords in Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. JarvisS obseryed : I do not think •rfiat it wouid be a proper exercise of the.aul+iority which this House possesses to hear oppeals if it occupies time m this case in deciding cn acadsmic question, ths answer to which cuinot affect the respondsnt in any way. It is on essential quality of an appeal fit to be disposed of by his House that there shoutd exist between the parties to a ' {AJ.R. 1953 S.C. 149} 2{1987(Supp)S.C.C.93} vA? matter in actuol controversy which the House undertakes to decide as a living issue." 7. In the matter of Secretary.. Ministry of Information & Broadcastir^, Sovt. of India and others Vs. Crieket Assoeiation vf of Bengai and others , the Supreme Court observed as under :- "121. TTie orders passed by the High Court have to be viewed against the backdrop of The events and the position of law discussed above. The circumstonces in which the High Court passed the orders and the factuat cmd legal considerations which weighed with it in passing 1+iem speak for themselves. However, since the cricket matches have already been telecast, the question of the legality or otherwise of the orders has become academic and it is not necessary to pronounce our formal verdict on the same. Hence we refrain from doina so." In the mater of State of Manipur and others Vs. Manihar Singh the Supreme Court observed cis under:- "10. Having given our onxious consideration to the rival contentions, we find that as the High Court's direction in favour of the respondenfs tenure which is to expire on 15-10-1999 has almost worked itself out and less thcn a month remains for him to act as Chairman of the Board, the first grievance raised by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in connection with the removai of the respondent by order dated 19-10-1998 has • become of academic interest. We, therefore, did not permit learned Senior Counsel for the appeltants to canvass this point any further before us. That takes us to the consideration of the second point." 1«I ua (Bfl •I ss ^([^ 8 Kl ss BsS B!B BNI Ef m {(1995) 2 5CC 161} {(1999) 7 SCC 503} ^ 9. The Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Amit Oas Vs. State of Bihar observed as under;- 6. It is settted practice that this Court does not decide matters which are only of academic interest on thejfacts of a particular case. (5ee with advantage: Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Cokin9 Coal Ltd.3, R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay4 and Ohartipakar Madcin Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv 6'andhiS.) . 10.In the matter of Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others the Supreme Court observed as under:- " 39. So far as the question about the non-application of mind in the sanctionor absence of sanction is concerned, this has been onswsred in the first question i.e. where the public seryant has ceased to be a pubtic ssrvont since he has ceased to hold the office where the alteged offence is supposed to have taken place, the other questions realty become academic." 11. The Commission has not recorded the finding after having examined all the aspects of the matter. This is a mere observation and particularly in view of the facts that no relief was gronted against the petitioner, the decision on this issue becomes a matter of academic interest. The Commissior) has declined to grant relief as sought for by the respondent No.3. Thus, the petitioner is not an aggrieved party to cho'lenge the order dated 23 June, 2008, passed by the Commission. 12.It js well settled principle of !aw that the question of law on academic interest cannot be adjudicated upon, •riie same should be sx NS• !S?^^^ ^;I^@ Bf SSSK i8B BBB• B^S • BBir KS BS • EffiSgi ESi ESI 5 {(2001) 7 SCC 657} 6 {(2007) 1 SCC 1} left open for adjudication, whenever the appropriate facts arises. The observation made by the Commission is left open to be decided in the appropriate facts of the case. The observation, which is under challenge, is mere obiter and not o. finding recorded by tiie Commission, as the materials were not availabie before the Commission to record any finding with regard to the applicability of the provisions. 13. Applying the above stated well sett'led principles of law, this petition has no merit. The petition is dismissed accordingly Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotn Judge Thakur-