Allowed

Public Information Officer v. Prakash P. Kukreja and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2024WP/715/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a Maharashtra State Information Commission order directing the High Court's Public Information Officer to disclose information sought by an RTI applicant about action on his complaint against a Judge. The court held judicial notings are confidential per its earlier decision, noted Rule 13(a) had been deleted, and set aside the order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Second Appellate Authority set aside.

Public Information Officer vs Prakash P. Kukreja and Anr. — RTI and Transparency | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

54-WP-715-2024.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 715 OF 2024

¶6

Public Information Officer, Deputy Registrar, Bombay High Court, Mumbai- 400032. Versus	) ) Respondent
1 Prakash P. Kukreja	)
Shop No.2, Hari Om Apartment,	)
B K C – 33 / R-124, Opp. Chopda Court,	)
Ulhasnagar – 421 003	)
2 The State of Maharashtra	)
Through – State Information Commissioner,	)
Maharashtra State, Mumbai	) Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rahul Nerlekar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Minal Chandnani a/w. U. M. Irfan, Advocates for Respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent No.2-State.

¶10

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 21^st AUGUST, 2024.

¶11

JUDGMENT :

¶12

This petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated

¶13

08.08.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 in Second Appeal No. MHSICMU/2022/M/004128 under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI”).

¶14

Petitioner is a Public Information Officer of High Court of Bombay.

¶15

It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 / original applicant

1/5

54-WP-715-2024.doc

S.S.Kilaje

sought information under the provisions of RTI. According to him, necessary information was provided, however, the respondent No.1 being not satisfied by the said information, preferred First Appeal bearing No. 125 of 2022 under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by holding that the information sought contains / remarks / notings of Hon’ble Judges and same is confidential in nature and therefore the order passed by Public Information Officer does not call for interference. Against this order Second Appeal came to be preferred under sub-Section 3 of Section 19 of the RTI Act. The said Authority by passing impugned order and directed petitioner to provide information within one month as sought by the respondent No.1.

¶20

This Petition is filed on the ground that the order impugned passed by the Second Appellate Authority is in ignorance of the complete facts and circumstances of the case and law. It has erred in proceeding on presumption as if an Enquiry Officer was appointed and he has submitted report of enquiry in respect of complaint lodged by respondent No.1. Another ground is raised by placing reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satara District Bar Association, Satara vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Civil W.P .No. 3879 of 2021 wherein it is held that the file notings are only transitory and tentative views and the same under no circumstances should be allowed to be

2/5

54-WP-715-2024.doc

S.S.Kilaje

brought into public domain or to be made the subject to any controversy. It is claimed that in ignorance of the said judgment as well as in ignorance of the fact that there is deletion of sub-Rule (a) of Rule 13 of the Bombay

¶25

High Court Right to Information (Revised) Rules, 2009 the order impugned came to be passed. On these amongst other grounds challenge is raised to the said order.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the application filed by respondent No.1, Public Information Officer has submitted proper response to the same and in facts of the case, no other information could be provided. It is his submission that having regard to the order of the Division Bench of this Court it was not open for the respondent No.1 to claim the notings and views of the Judges. It is his submission that during the hearing of the Second Appeal, the Second Appellate Authority has called upon the petitioner to provide information as to the outcome of the complaint made by respondent No.1 and accordingly it was informed to the respondent No.1 about his complaint being closed without any action against the Judge. It is his submission that the intention of the respondent No.1 in seeking information has been duly satisfied and as such there was no reason or justification for the Second Appellate Authority to direct Public Information Officer for providing any further information, which practically is for providing notings and views of Judges.

3/5

54-WP-715-2024.doc

S.S.Kilaje

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the petition by contending that it is the right of the party to seek relevant information with regard to the action taken on the basis of the complaint lodged by a Judge. It is her submission that the order passed by the Second Appellate Authority is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and as such no interference is called for therein.

¶31

At the outset, reference is made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Satara District Bar Association (supra) , wherein it is observed that the file notings are only transitory and tentative views and an exchange of views. These should under no circumstances be allowed to be brought into public domain or be made in subject of any controversy. These observations make abundantly clear that no person is entitled to get the notings and / or views of the Judges in respect of administrative issues. Undisputedly during the course of the hearing before the Second Appellate Authority, Public Information Officer was called upon to provide specific information and the respondent No.1 about his complaint being closed without taking any action against the Judge. In the light of this, there remains no other information to be provided to the petitioner. In such circumstances, providing further information would mean the notings and views of Judges concerned, which is not permissible in law.

4/5

54-WP-715-2024.doc

S.S.Kilaje

Perusal of the impugned judgment also indicates that the Second Appellate Authority has not taken cognizance of the fact that Sub-Rule (a) of Rule 13 of Bombay High Court Right to Information (Revised) Rules, 2009 has already been deleted. It is thus clear that the order impugned is passed in ignorance of relevant rules so also the judgment of this Court. The direction issued in the circumstances by the Second Appellate Authority would only read to provide the administrative notings and views of the Judges thereon which is not permissible.

¶36

Resultantly, Writ Petition stands allowed. Impugned order is set aside.

¶37

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISH Date: 2024.08.27 KILAJE 16:47:42+0700

¶38

5/5

Public Information Officer v. Prakash P. Kukreja and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Public Information Officer v. Prakash P. Kukreja and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Bombay Xavierian Corporation, Thru. Trustee Father Anthony Tascano vs Sarosh Abdullah Zakeria, Trustee Jama Masjid Nawayat Trust

Pandurang Arjun Wadavkar (Deceased) and Others Vs Alkabai Dattatraya Auti

Pandurang Arjun Wadavkar (Deceased) and Others Vs Alkabai Dattatraya Auti

Ms. Delna Adi Mehta Aka Mrs. Delna Riyaz Shaikh. vs Padma Adi Mehta

Sachin S/O Baban Ekshinge Vs Dnyaneshwar Baban Choudhary and Another

Chaya Dashrath Mane Vs Dropadibai Vitthal Kada