•Sj.iute. tttNlii ^...•. t W.P.fC.i N0.^0) 10 ,,„„„ 555t^5 ?^f "jr^&ir EX^J^fc KESPONDt A-^y. n^^> (>^w--"}" a.-h,--»-t-. nuvucai-S Vinod Chaun.-).-, s :Ta^QSSa£^ ^ed?^Eic(1aw3da VERSUS Infbrmatinn .-.„„„-:_ yvsn,, ss!fss!LP'^oy)ss -^' ^ Mi{ ,^y^''' •^y.---""' <<yA--"' yy ^ Joinf fiof.^^^.' ^"l- ^"'"mfftee & ;'"'"• "ecreraEy, Mjnjgtn,f^'^J Nji,at-^,'J'-^"""s"y OT yteei, '^a\ 52/1A RalltmT^;' MSU Secretary & pyst a„„„„„ f a^.^»ll?1 ^. uovenimenf af innra -n. Secreton7^.;l.'"a13- nreugh; 'Q-f-^^.-.-...^. -- ~~ •"••^ssf^ i lim?actj'?^-i • Minjsfn. n7S»^"""uan; " °" Offi^ Mmarv £^ft.GW6r!Ins°ofaS NewDeftj. '"""'• ^~-^~^S.S-—.-~-._ ~-—— " ""-~= T i S~SS HIGH COURT OF CtIHATTISGARI-I AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2910 of2009 PETITIONER Advocate Vinod Chawada. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Central Information Commission & five Others. Post for pronouncement oforder on -<^. day ofJuly, 2010. ^ril Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (0 No. 2910 of2009 Advocate Vinod Chawada. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Central Information Commission & five Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LNDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotrj, J, Present: Shri Ankit Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kashif Shakel, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 to 6. ORDER (Delivered on .^."ftrday of July, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 05.05.2009 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecutlon. 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner presented an application dated 01.20.2008 (Annexure P/2) to the Public Infonnation Officer, Ispat Marttralaya, Government of India, New Delhi, under the provisions of section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act, 2005'), wherein the petitioner applied for supply of certified copy of certain documents alongwith certain informations, as under: "(i) certified copies ofthe inspection report ofPrakash Industries Ltd., Champa-Janjgir (C.G.) prepared by Joint Plant Committee under Ministry of Steel, Govt. of India and submitted the saine before committee of Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India regarding allocation of concessions of Coal Blocks i.e. Urtaan, Beaharaband North and Vijay Central Coal Blocks. (ii) certified copies of official Memorandum presented by Prakash Industries Limited, Champa Janjgir (C.G.) in respect ofsubject noted in above col. No. (i); and (iii) the reasons for not publishing the abovementioned information on the official website of the Steel Ministry as is statutory required as per section 4(1) of the Right to Infonnation Act." The request of the petitioner was forwarded to the Executive Secretary & CPIO, Joint Plant Committee, Kolkata on 10.10.2008 (Annexure P/3). The Director and Public Infonnation Officer, Ministry of Steel, refused to supply the information as sought for by the petitioner vide letter dated 03.11.2008 (Annexure P/ll) on the ground that the documents have been forwarded to the Joint Plant Committee in respect of para 1 of his application, in respect of para 2 of the application, the same was refused on the ground that the allotment ofVijay Central Coal Block is to be finalized and the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble court as the same relates to the Ministry of Coal, the application may be presented before the Ministry of Coal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred first appeal before the appellate authority, Ministry of Steel, Govemment of India on 17.11.2008 (Annexure P/5) under the provisions of section 19(1) of the Act, 2005. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 01.12.2008 (Annexu'e P/6) holding as under: "Ira vsv — i ^it^s 'T^ic-i'y ^ R'lf* 10.10.2008 ^ ai'j.'MK ut'D'tfl q>t 31'dRd cF? I^TT :T^T t 1 ^'OT 3ITqc& gRT «RrraT ^rer t fe ^^l~>Eft ^ apft ?ra> cfit^ ^ OT? ^f f^qr 7rar 11 SRI: arprat piMRiRsiti Ti^ 1r? ^Tfr?ft ^ apflcfrT yiRi*!-?) ^ wf v^ Tffl 'ware ^t "mft t: ^f. ^^?r TmtT Rf?. 'H'^<W 'ato ^ ai'flcfl'y mftwrft, "qT?S ^vri'S q>4^t. d^ll'l •IW:T. ~-^ f^roftl 2. -TC ^r®n- 2 ^ 'CT^ET ^' <!c^-a4l4 t ft; crfRra ^FW ^ ftf? 3114*1 ^Tt^rar 4^idi ^ ^fW t|^4 ^t •tfdlg ^t IT^ aft ^Tff^? ~vs Kvf ^-T^ 'CTerter t sih q? 'TPTCTT "yi^itftTf 11 /*-: -^ ^s«s« i?1 \^! 6. 3RT: 3TPT $^T 'q^ERT <^ f^n? ^ftsn^grt. ^qcrr 4did.il ^ v^ ^? •y<t>(i ti 3. SpfteT ^ :>R 'H^H — 3 ^ 'CT^'ET ^' -!I^ yr: qigT uireT t R) ^EFIT ^pr aifferaiK 3rf£ri?ripT, 2005 ^ 3faThr aip|cii4 WT ^ qdi^ un4 qr^t w4t '•q^FTP? T?^ '^ €t i^id^ ^ 3^-tll^d T? 'SVvfSf f Slt'; ^n STPT^ grer sF^tET ftiqr TTV t. wft 7itf?:T<Er sft^ ^Ti\Tf\'i Tfft 3TR eTT5^ ^TdiET (|).(ci|^ ^T qit^ TRTRT '•T^T 11" Thereaflter, the petitioner received three more communications on 3.12.2008 (Annexure P/7), 23.10.2008 (Annexure P/8) and 29.12.2008 (Annexure P/9). Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a second appeal under the provisions ofsection 6 read with section 19(3) ofthe Act, 2005 on 06.01.2009 (Annexure P/10). The same was also dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2009 (Annexiire P/l) for want of prosecution. Shri Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 (for short 'the Rules, 2005') provides for filing of an appeal and hearing of the appeal. Rule 7 of the Rules, 2005 provides that the appellant may opt not to be present and in that event, final decision may be taken on the basis of documents and after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondents. The respbndent No. 1 committed serious error in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without examining the second appeal of the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 05.05.2009 (Annexure P/l). On the ofher hand, Shri Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 to 6 would make submission on merit. However, with regard to averment of dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution, he would submit that the appeal was disposed of after considering the facts submitted by the Du-ector, CPIO, Ministry of 4 7. 8. 9. Steel. Thus, the grievance ofthe petitioner that the appeal was dismissed for want ofprosecution, is contrary to the facts and record. Heard leamed eounsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Without going into the merits of the case, I would examine the only question asto whether the second appeal can be dismissed by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the appellant has not appeared for hearing on 02.03.2009 and 05.05.2009. The appellant has further not responded to the notice for hearing nor has submitted any comments or rejoinder on the submission made by the respondents. Thus, it was presumed that he was no more interested in pursuing the matter and the appeal was disposed of. In the appeal preferred before the respondent No. 1 (Annexure P/12), it was cleariy stated by the petitioner that the appeal may be considered on merit and in its perspective without insisting on appearance of the petitioner/appellant, which reads as imder: ^ "^t ^ra srp'ftir ^ •?pTsr ^rar^ R. 20.03.09 ^ spftcnaff ^TftaicT 'gf^ ^t (ft ?W ^ra'ET ^ aritcTTsff STCT 3[iFft 'i^T SpftcT ^ ys ^. g qit qifetFr 3 ^' €t R'WlRd WT ^ 'wcr'ISTtT tEiTpra; ui<iyi-iT qn vicd'a qi'Rt ^; oyRd<id ^TfW^T Vff ftTg^ ^? ^ur-?hT ^ gnqr? w fSrfli snfta ^ P|'(I*<!"I %T ST^ET f^rr 7rer 11 3Rp.p. di;^-Hi'( apfter t^ Pl'<l<fr'<"l W ST^IET f |" 10. In the notice of hearing dated 24.03.2009 (Annexure P/14), it was clearly stated that "In the event of failure by you to appear for the hearing, the Commission shall pass an ex-parte order" and further "The appellant Sh. Vinod Chawada may also present in person or through an authorized representative for hearing". 11. The contents of para 3 of the notice dated 24.03.2009 (Annexure P/14) has been replied by the petitioner vide coinmunication dated 30.03.2009 S^'^S-F®^^^^^ (Annexure P/15) that the he may be exempted from appearing on the date ofhearing i.e. 05.05.2009 and the case may be decided on the basis ofmerit. 12. Rule 7(2) ofthe Rules, 2005 reads as under: "7. Personal presence of the appellant or complainant. - (1) XXX XXX XXX (2) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may at his discretion at the time of hearing of the appeal or complaint by the Commission be present in person or through his duly authorized representative or may opt not to be present. (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx" 13. On bare perusal ofthe Rules, it is clear that the appellant or complainant may be present in person or his duly authorized representative or may opt not to be present. The Commission may decide the appeal on merit without insisting on presence ofthe appellant. It is crystal clear from the aforesaid facts that the petitioner/appellant in covering letter as well as in the subsequent corre.spondence, as aforestated, has clearly stated that the he may be exempted from appearing before the Commission under the provisions ofRule 7(2) ofthe Rules, 2005. The scheme ofthe Act, 2005 as well as the Rules, 2005 framed therein, do not contemplate hearing of the appellant before taking a decision on merits of the case. The requirement seems to be to act on the complaint or appeal by summoning documents calling upon the respondents against whom the complaint is made and pass order in accordance with the provisions of law. 14. The impugned order has been passed not on the basis of merit but on the basis that he had neither appeared nor any representation was made neither any rejoinder or submissions have been forwarded by the / 'f <f lisfci-.. 3, A ^ S ^€^/ appellant, holding that the appellant may not be interested in pursuing the appeal. It was required that the Commission ought to have considered the facts on merits after seeking response from the other parties against whom the complaint/appeal was filed and pass order on merit. 15. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 05.05.2009 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to examine the appeal of the petitioner on its merit and perspective and pass the order in accordance with law. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 17. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ._^^-)~—^ Amit