The court dismissed the petitioner's plea for fresh directions regarding website publication of laws, holding the matter was sub judice under a prior judgment, H.C. Arora, directing timely compliance.
No fresh directions issued; respondents directed to comply with prior orders promptly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 23871 of 2011
Date of Decision: 13.7.2012
Anshul Joy
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.
Present: Mr. Ashwanie Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.2.
Ms. Sonia Sharma, Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.
None for respondents No.4 and 5.
Dr. Balram K. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Saini, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7.
Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Advocate for respondent No.8.
Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
By filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made that directions be issued to respondents No.1 to 3 to manage the legal information efficiently in a readable format and to make available all laws in force, enactments, rules etc. on their respective Government websites and make the same available at a reasonable price.
Civil Writ Petition No. 23871 of 2011
2
After going through the contents of the writ petition and the replies filed, we are of the opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the ratio of judgment of this Court rendered in H.C. Arora v. State of Punjab and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 8209 of 2007, decided on 10.8.2009) wherein directions to the States of Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh were issued to get the rules, regulations, instructions and manuals updated regularly. The State of Punjab was also directed to publish the rules, regulations, instructions and manuals referred to in Section 4(1)(b)(v) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as early as possible but not later than six months.
Under the circumstances, we feel that there is no need to issue any fresh directions in the matter. We hope and trust that the authorities shall comply with the directions issued in case H.C. Arora (supra) and shall also publish all the rules, regulations, instructions and manuals etc. with promptitude but not later than one month.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of.
(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice
(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge
July 13, 2012 “DK”
2 issues framed by the court
Whether fresh directions under the RTI Act are required when earlier directions cover the same matter.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to directions for making laws available on Government websites.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
H.C. Arora v. State of Punjab and OthersFollowed¶21
H.C. Arora v. State of Punjab and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 8209 of 2007, decided on 10.8.2009)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anshul Joy
State of Haryana
Union Territory, Chandigarh
Jasbir Singh
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
