Quashed

Punjab and Haryana High Court v. Central Information Commission, and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Feb 2011CWP/20638/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the Central Information Commission's order dismissing an appeal regarding RTI information on recruitment. The CIC was found to lack jurisdiction to hear appeals against the First Appellate Authority's dismissal, leading the High Court to set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 21.11.2008 of the Central Information Commission is quashed, and the respondent is permitted to file the appeal before the appropriate forum.

Punjab and Haryana High Court Vs Central… — RTI and Transparency | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

C.W.P.No.20638 of 2008 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of Decision:-7.2.2011

¶4

The Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶5

Versus

¶6

Central Information Commission and another

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶8

Present:Mr.Rajiv Narain Raina, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Keshav Kaushik, Advocate-respondent No.2 in person.

¶10

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)

¶11

The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Keshav Kaushik (respondent No.2) sought information, copies of answer sheets and other documents relating to the recruitments of Additional District and Sessions Judges in the State of Haryana, invoking the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005. The same was declined by the Assistant Public Information Officer (for brevity “APIO”) of petitioner-High Court, vide order dated 29.5.2008 (Annexure P2).

¶12

Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P2), respondent No.2 filed the appeal (Annexure P3), which was dismissed as well, by the First Appellate Authority (for short “FAA”), by virtue of order dated 16.8.2008 (Annexure P5). The second appeal filed by respondent No.2 was accepted by the Central Information Commission (for brevity “CIC”), by way of impugned order dated 21.11.2008 (Annexure P8).

¶13

The petitioner-High Court did not feel satisfied and instituted the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P8), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

C.W.P.No.20638 of 2008 2

¶15

At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner-High Court contended with some amount of vehemence that as the CIC did not have the jurisdiction to decide the appeal against the judgment of FAA, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P8) is not only illegal but without jurisdiction as well.

¶16

Faced with the situation, respondent No.2 (in person) has fairly conceded that since the CIC did not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the judgment (Annexure P5) of FAA, so, the impugned order (Annexure P8) be set aside and he be permitted to file the appeal before the appropriate Forum in this context.

¶17

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P8) is hereby quashed, being without jurisdiction, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶18

Needless to mention here that if respondent No.2 files the appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay before the appropriate Forum, then, the same will be considered sympathetically in accordance with law.

¶19

7.2.2011 AS

Punjab and Haryana High Court v. Central Information Commission, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Haryana High Court v. Central Information Commission, and Anr.

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

Dwarka Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gulzar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhwinder Pal Vs Superintending Canal Officer & Ors.

Mithan Singh and Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner Haryana and Ors.

Zila Parishad Vs State of Pb. & Ors.

Ravi Pal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.