Disposed

S.Muthumalai v. the Central Information Commissioner

Calcutta HC21 Sept 2023WPA/902/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding inaction on an RTI matter and alleged false affidavits. The Court held it cannot direct the filing of an FIR or delve into factual disputes about an affidavit's veracity in writ jurisdiction, noting the information was already disclosed.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of with a direction to respondent authorities to proceed in accordance with the law if sufficient ground exists.

S.Muthumalai Vs the Central Information Commissioner — RTI and Transparency | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

¶2

…

¶3

WPA/902/2023

¶4

Shri S. Muthumalai … Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Central Information Commissioner & Ors.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

Mr. Ananda Halder …for the Petitioner

¶9

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty …for the Respondent nos. 5-6

¶10

September 21, 2023 (T.K) Item No.4

¶11

The petitioner as well as the respondents are represented.

¶12

The petitioner here is aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent no.1 to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, in view of the particular facts and circumstances of this case.

¶13

The facts and circumstances of the case, in a nutshell may be narrated as herein below:-

¶14

The petitioner applied for disclosure of certain information under provisions of the Right to Information Act, on 28^th August, 2020, before the respondent no.3 being the Public Information Officer.

¶15

A letter dated 17^th September, 2020 is reply of respondent no.3 to the petitioner to state as follows:-

¶16

¶17

“With reference to your RTI application dated 28/08/2020, it is to inform that the requisite information as sought is not available with this office.

¶18

It is further, to inform that, if you are not satisfied with the reply furnished under RTI Act, 2005, you may appeal to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days from the receipt of such a decision. The Designated Appellate Authority against the decision of PIO/AC(S) is DC(SA).”

¶19

The petitioner was not satisfied with the reply as stated above and moved in an appeal before the respondent no.2/First Appellate Authority. The reply of the respondent no.2 was just a replica of what the respondent no.3 had earlier written. That prompted the petitioner to move before the respondent no. 1. The respondent no.1 redressed the grievance of the petitioner by an order to direct the respondent no. 3 to submit an affidavit, affirming the fact what he has earlier stated in the letter dated 17^th September, 2020. Allegedly however, such an affidavit was submitted by respondent no. 4, who was never actually asked to do so by the apex authority i.e. respondent no.1.

¶20

An affidavit was furnished contending that the relevant documents were not available with the office.

¶21

It is further submitted that before furnishing such an affidavit, the same set of documents were supplied to some other person, by respondent no.3, in reply to an application under the Right to Information Act. It has also been submitted that even after filing the affidavit as above of respondent no.4 to respondent no.1, the same set of documents have also been supplied to the petitioner, in

¶22

¶23

response to his subsequent and second application under the provisions of Right to Information Act.

¶24

On the perspective of this factual background the writ petitioner has now expressed grievance firstly of the fact that the respondent no. 4 has submitted a false affidavit in compliance with the order of respondent no.1 and secondly that the respondent no. 1 has failed to discharge its statutory duty in invoking appropriate punitive provisions of law against the concerned respondents for submission of a false affidavit.

¶25

By referring to the relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 learned Advocate for the writ petitioner has submitted that the concerned respondent was liable to be prosecuted under the specific provision of law for furnishing a false affidavit, which the authorities should be mandated to initiate. He has reiterated petitioner’s prayer narrated in the writ petition that direction may be given to the respondents no. 5 and 6 to lodge F.I.R. for commission of a cognizable offence against respondents no. 3 and 4 and to initiate a legal action under the respective provision of the said Act against them.

¶26

Mr. Chakraborty has represented the respondent no. 4 and has defended on the basis of affidavit-in-opposition filed by him. The first point in contradiction of what has been stated by the petitioner is of the misrepresentation of fact by the writ petitioner in so far as, according to Mr. Chakraborty, there has not been any false affidavit filed by

¶27

¶28

the concerned respondent as alleged. On affidavit the respondent has submitted that the document sought for by the writ petitioner was not available in the office to which the application was made but at some other place/office. Therefore, the same was made available to the other applicant who had applied for the same in a proper manner and place/office. It is only for this reason that the copies of the said document have been provided to the writ petitioner at a belated point of time than the date of his first application for disclosure of the same.

¶29

Mr. Chakraborty has further pointed out to the fact that it is not for a writ Court to issue direction for lodging F.I.R. against the answering respondent. On this point he has relied on two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court that is (i) Sakiri Vasu – vs – State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409 and (ii) M. Subramaniam and another – vs – S. Janaki and another reported in (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 728 . He has emphasized that since the query of the writ petitioner had already been answered by the respondents, the writ petitioner would not have any cause of action left for adjudication by this Court. On the grounds as above he has pleaded that necessary order for dismissal of the writ petition may be made.

¶30

On perusal of the record and consideration of submissions of the respective learned lawyers, this Court finds that the fact that petitioner’s query has already been

¶31

¶32

answered and informations sought for being disclosed already is undisputed in this case. Petitioner’s grievance is with regard to filing of alleged false affidavit by respondent no. 4 which the respondent no. 4 has denied and disputed on affidavit. Whether or not the affidavit filed by the respondent no. 4 contained false statements is a question of fact upon which this Court cannot delve into, while sitting in a writ jurisdiction.

¶33

So far as the prayer made by the writ petitioner is concerned I find that the law is well settled that the Court cannot embark upon directing for filing of F.I.R. and the above two judgments referred to by the respondent would hold this proposition as good.

¶34

Let this writ petition be disposed of with the direction upon the respondent authorities to proceed in accordance with law in case it finds sufficient ground in this case to do so.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all legal formalities.

S.Muthumalai v. the Central Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Muthumalai v. the Central Information Commissioner

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

Case details

Similar cases

Muthu Vs the Administration of Andaman and Nicobar Island and Ors.

Muthu Vs the Administration of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Ors.

Ujjwal Kumar Bardhan Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

Prohlad Sikdar Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others

P.Kalimuthu Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others

Arup Bagui Vs Union of India and Ors.