Quashed

Jamiat Singh Palial v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Nov 2011CWP/20473/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed an order by the State Information Commission directing the constitution of an inquiry committee under the RTI Act. The court held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to direct inquiries against public officials, usurping the writ court's function.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the State Information Commission is quashed; writ petition disposed with liberty to file another petition.

Jamiat Singh Palial Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No. 20473 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 20473 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: November 16, 2011

¶6

Jamiat Singh Palial …Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

¶11

Present: Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶16

The prayer made in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of directions to Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Hoshiapur and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mukeria, District Hoshiarpur to ensure the time bound and expeditious completion of inquiry by a committee to be headed by respondent No. 4-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mukeria, for investigation into the allegations of misappropriation of public funds by Smt. Ram Dulari w/o Sh. Durga Dass, Ex-Surpanch Gram Panchayat, Village- Palli, Block Talwara, district Hoshiarpur in connivance with other Panchayat Members and other Government

¶17

CWP No. 20473 of 2011

¶18

-2-

¶19

Officials as alleged in representation dated 11.11.2005 (P-1). A further prayer has also been made to take further action for recovery of public funds so misappropriated by Ex-Surpanch-respondent No.5 and other persons and for initiation prosecution in case the Inquiry Committee finds the allegations meritorious.

¶20

Order dated 22.12.2009 (P-2), passed by the State Information Commissioner, Punjab emerges from the power given to State Information Commission by Sections 18 and 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. According to the aforesaid provisions, the duty of the State Information Commission is to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person with regard to non-availability of information. It also empowers the State Information Commission to issue directions to department concerned for supply of the information. However, there is no power to issue directions for constitution of a Committee for holding of an inquiry against the Ex-Surpanch. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, order dated 22.12.2009, passed by the State Information Commission needs to be examined and the same reads as under:

¶21

“As per directions given on the last date of hearing SDM Dasuya directed Shri Baldev Singh, BDPO to conduct an inquiry but Shri Jamiat Singh Palial, Appellant, objected to it stating that the inquiry may be got conducted by some senior officer. He has also reported the matter to the SDM as well as to the Deputy Commissioner.

¶22

-3-

¶23

CWP No. 20473 of 2011

¶24

Accordingly, it is directed that Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur shall constitute a Committee in which at least two public men will be be included, to conduct an inquiry, which will be completed in two months and the inquiry report be sent to the appellant.

¶25

The case is disposed of.”

¶26

A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the State Information Commission has assumed the jurisdiction of a Writ Court by issuing directions for constitution of a Committee which was to be headed by Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur in which at least two public members were to be included. The inquiry was to be completed within a period of two months and inquiry report was to be sent to the petitioner, who was the appellant before the State Information Commission, Punjab.

¶27

On the last date of hearing, we had asked learned State Counsel to ascertain whether Sh. Surinder Singh, who has passed order dated 22.02.2009, functioning as State Information Commissioner, Punjab is still continuing or has demitted the office. According to the information supplied, the aforesaid Engineer Sh. Surinder Singh has demitted the office on 16.05.2011, having completed the term of five years. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned Addl. A.G., Punjab disclosed that the inquiry has not been completed within the prescribed period as given in order dated 22.12.2009.

¶28

In view of the above, order dated 22.12.2009, cannot be implemented as the aforesaid order is wholly without jurisdiction and is completely misuse of the powers conferred on State Information

¶29

-4-

¶30

CWP No. 20473 of 2011

¶31

Commission. The State of Punjab is directed to conduct some orientation courses before appointing any persons especially outside the field of law to trained them with regard to their powers and functions.

¶32

Accordingly, order dated 22.12.2009 (P-2) is quashed and the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file any other petition to make the claim for which prayer has been made in the instant petition.

¶33

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶34

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE

¶35

November 16, 2011 Atul

Jamiat Singh Palial v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamiat Singh Palial v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Harpal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jahrudeen & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

HUDA and Anr. Vs Layak Ram

Birampal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

HUDA and Anr. Vs M/S Swadeshi Loomtex Pvt. Ltd.