Dismissed

Thakarshibhai Bhurabhai Jajal v. Gujarat State Information Commissioner

Gujarat HC16 Jun 2022SCA/7188/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition filed by the legal heirs of a deceased RTI applicant against the Municipal Corporation. The Court held that the underlying order requiring information or details of search efforts was complied with via a Panch Rojkam confirming record unavailability. It ruled Section 20(2) RTI Act does not apply absent proof of mala fide destruction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands rejected and notice is discharged.

Thakarshibhai Bhurabhai Jajal Vs Gujarat State… — Consumer Protection | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/SCA/7188/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7188 of 2021

¶4

========================================================== THAKARSHIBHAI BHURABHAI JAJAL

¶5

Versus

¶6

GUJARAT STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7 MR NEERAJ SONI(3433) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS POONAM M MAHETA(11265) for the Respondent(s) No. 5 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

¶12

Date : 16/06/2022 ORAL ORDER

¶13

1.The original petitioner since deceased, is
represented by his legal heirs.

¶14

2.The present writ petition has been filed for
the following reliefs:

¶15

“10(A).Direct respondent 5 – Public Information
Officer, Damnagar municipality to provide information
sought by the petitioner vide application dated
28.06.2017 (Annexure B).

¶16

(B) Direction respondent 5 – Public Information
Officer, Damnagar municipality to pay fine as he is
liable to pay to the petitioner for not providing
information in statutory time period of 30 days.

¶17

(C) Give inspection of the documents sought for vide
application dated 28.06.2017, during pendency of the
petition, and”

¶18

3.Learned advocate Mr.Soni appearing for the
petitioners (i.e. legal heirs of the deceased
petitioner-Thakarshibhai Bhurabhai Jajal) has
submitted that in fact the respondent No.5 is not
implementing the order dated 07.03.2019 passed in

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

C/SCA/7188/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2022

¶21

Appeal No.A-0292-2018 passed by the State Chief
Information Commissioner-respondent No.1. He has
submitted that as per the aforesaid order, the
respondent No.5 was supposed to give information
with regard to service of the deceased petitioner
however, the same is not done. Thus, he has
submitted that as per the provisions of Section
20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the
RTI Act) the record of the deceased petitioner,
which has been illegally destroyed, appropriate
penalty may be imposed upon the respondent No.5.

¶22

4.In response to the aforesaid submissions,
learned advocate Ms.Poonam Maheta for the
respondent No.5, while inviting attention of this
Court to the affidavit has submitted that despite
the best efforts made by the respondent No.5,
record pertaining to the service of the deceased
petitioner was not found and accordingly, Panch
Rojkam was prepared on 10.12.2021. She has
submitted that as per the order dated 07.03.2019
passed by the State Chief Information
Commissioner, the respondent No.5 was supposed to
give the information and if the record is not
available, the details with regard to their
efforts having being made for finding such record
are required to be produced, which they have done
and hence, the said order has been complied with.

¶23

5.Heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and also perused the documents
as pointed out by them.

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

C/SCA/7188/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2022

¶26

6.The petitioners are seeking the information
pursuant to the order dated 07.03.2019 passed in
his appeal by the State Chief Information
Commissioner-respondent No.1. A perusal of the
said order reveals that while disposing the
appeal, the respondent No.1 had ordered the
respondent No.5 to give all the information and
send the necessary information, without levying
any charge, through RPAD “OR” if record is not
available, appropriate details with regard to
efforts made in finding such record should be
supplied to the petitioners. Accordingly, the
respondent No.5 had undertaken the necessary
exercise to search the record however, since the
same was not traced out, necessary information
was given to the petitioners along with the
communication dated 10.12.2021. The respondent
No.5 has prepared Panch Rojkam dated 10.12.2021,
which was supplied to the petitioners indicating
that despite their best efforts made, they are
unable to trace out his record.

¶27

7.Thus, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the order dated 07.03.2021 passed by the
respondent No.1 has been said to have been
complied with, in wake of the option given to the
respondent No.5 either to supply the information
or send necessary details of the search or
efforts made in finding such record. The
directions issued in the said order do not in any
way imply that information or record is required

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

C/SCA/7188/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2022

¶30

to be given. The direction, as stated
hereinabove, are in two parts, either to give the
record “OR” to supply the details of the efforts
made by the respondent No.5 in tracing out the
record to the petitioners. Accordingly, Panch
Rojkam dated 10.12.2021 prepared by the
respondent No.5 reveals that despite their
efforts, they are unable to find the record. It
is not the case of the petitioners that Rojkam is
falsely prepared and is concocted.

¶31

8.Learned advocate for the petitioners has
placed reliance on sub-section (2) of Section 20
of the RTI Act, which reads as under:

¶32

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the
State Information Commission, as the case may be, at
the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of
the opinion that the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as
the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause
and persistently, failed to receive an application
for information or has not furnished information
within the time specified under sub-section (1) of
section 7 or malafidely denied the request for
information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete
or misleading information or destroyed information
which was the subject of the request or obstructed in
any manner in furnishing the information, it shall
recommend for disciplinary action against the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, under the
service rules applicable to him.

¶33

9.In the considered opinion of this Court, the
provision of Section 20(2) of the RTI Act will
not apply in the present case as it is not the
case of the petitioners that any incorrect or

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

C/SCA/7188/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2022

¶36

misleading information has been provided to them
or the information has been destroyed mala
fidely. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the
action of the respondent authority in non-
preservation of the record or destruction of the
record in illegal manner, they may approach the
concerned authority. There is no finding of any
of the authority that such information has been
destroyed with mala fide intent. While exercising
discretionary power vested under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, this Court cannot
delve in the question of fact with regard to
destruction or non-preservation of the record of
the deceased petitioner.

¶37

10.In light of the foregoing facts and
observations, the present writ petition stands
rejected. Notice is discharged.

¶38

NVMEWADA

¶39

Page 5 of 5

Thakarshibhai Bhurabhai Jajal v. Gujarat State Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakarshibhai Bhurabhai Jajal v. Gujarat State Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rathva Arvindbhai Kishanbhai Vs State of Gujarat

Firdaus Memorial Charity and Education Trust through Autho. Sign. Radheyshyam Rampal Patel Vs Chief Executive Officer

M/S Jalaram Metal Alloys Vs State of Gujarat

Laxmansinh Kesharsinh Solanki Vs State of Gujarat

Jatinkumar Ramanlal Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Gangaben Shivabhai Senva Vs State of Gujarat