Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Murala Gopinadh, vs The Public Information Officer ... on 28 February, 2023

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                       &

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

                              W.P. No.37416 of 2014



Murala Gopinadh,
S/o M.Rama Mohana Rao,
Nizvid, Krishna District.
                                                            .. Petitioner
       Versus

The Public Information Officer sum
Administrative Officer,
Hon'ble District Judge Court,
Rajahmundry, East Godavari District
and 2 others.

                                                             ..Respondents


Counsel for the Petitioner             : Party in person

Counsel for the respondents           : Standing Counsel for High Court


                                     ORDER

Date: 28.02.2023 (per D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J)

This writ petition is filed by petitioner as party in person

seeking a Mandamus to the respondents namely, the Public

Information Officer-cum-Administrative Officer, District Judge

Court, Rajahmundry, the appellate authority-cum-Registrar,

General, High court of Andhra Pradesh for information under the

Right to Information Act pertaining to case C.C.No.133 of 2010 on

the file of the II Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry.

2. This Court has heard the party in person and the learned

counsel representing the High Court.

3. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction/Mandamus

to the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information

Act represented by the Registrar General, High Court of A.P., for

supply of the following information:

"1. I am hereby requesting you to provide me the status of my perjury application Sr.No.7690/27-12-2010 in Crl.M.P.No. /2010 in Main C.C.133/2010 in Hon. II JFMC Rajahmundry and also provide me certified copiesof my application/petition and material evidence and all return reasons and all re-submissions, including any proceeding from 27-12-2010 to 17-06-2011 inclusive of both the dates.

1. I was deprived of natural justice when I and my parents got issued NBW without issuance of summons in C.C.No.133/2020 Hon II JFMC, Rajahmundry and hence, I am hereby seeking the docket order on 16-Aug-2010 and docket order on 02-Nov-2010 along with any

publication or any proceeding, including note file if any, between he said dates inclusive of both the dates to appeal for revision.

2. Kindly provide me 2 sets of the certified copies of:- complaint, complete docket order, FIR, Charge sheet, all 161 statements, and all the list of documents submitted in C.C.No.133/2010 in Hon II JFMC, RJY, including complete proceedings from the date of complaint till date including note files if any."

4. The party-in-person argued the matter at length and stated

that he was deprived of the information and raised a number of

other issues in the course of his argument.

5. The Chief Administrative Officer, East Godavari District

representing the Principal District Court has filed a counter

affidavit. From the counter, it is apparent that the petitioner has

only filed two valid applications dated 21.02.2014 and the other

two applications upon which he agitated upon are photo copies of

the earlier application. It is also stated that the appellate

authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal for request for

information holding that the petitioner has to approach the

appropriate Court to secure the data. As far as the inspection of

document is concerned, it is also stated that the petitioner has

appeared in person and has also verified the data. As per the

learned counsel, a reading of the rejoinder would also reveal that

the petitioner is aware of a majority of docket orders that were

passed. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent submits that

the petitioner is a party to the said C.C.No.133 of 2010 and as per

the Rules, he is entitled to secure all the copies that he desires by

making an appropriate copy application and that the Right to

Information Act is not a proper Act for seeking the data or

information.

6. COURT: This Court after hearing the submissions on both

sides notices that it is a fact that the petitioner himself is an

accused in the criminal case C.C.No.133 of 2010. Therefore, he

can secure all the data that he requires including the copies of the

documents by making an appropriate application under the Rules

of Practice.

7. As per the law on the subject, which is clearly pronounced in

Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and

another1, a party to a proceeding in a Court or a third party to the

proceeding can obtain the information and copies of all the

1 (2020) 4 SCC 702

documents by making an appropriate application to the Court

under the Rules governing the subject for securing the copies of

the docket orders etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held in

this judgment that if the High Court Rules or the Court Rules

provide a mechanism for securing the said documents, the same

cannot be abandoned or discontinued merely because the Right to

Information Act has been enacted.

8. Paras 23 and 24 of the said judgment are reproduced

hereunder:

23. In order to consider the contentions urged by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, let us briefly refer to the various categories of information held by the High Court, which are broadly as under:-

(a) information held by the High Court relating to the parties to the litigation/proceedings - pleadings, documents and other materials and memo of grounds raised by the parties;

(b) orders and judgments passed by the High Court, notes of proceedings, etc.;

(c) In exercise of power of superintendence over the other courts and tribunals, information received in the records submitted/called for by those courts and tribunals like subordinate judiciary, various tribunals like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and other tribunals;

(d) information on the administrative side of the High Court viz. appointments, transfers and postings of the judicial officers, staff members of the High Court and the district judiciary, disciplinary action taken against the judicial officers and the staff members and such other information relating to the administrative work.

(e) Correspondence by the High Court with the Supreme Court, Government and with the district judiciary, etc.; and

(f) information on the administrative side as to the decision taken by the collegium of the High Court in making recommendations of the Judges to be appointed to the High Court; information as to the assets of the sitting Judges held by the Chief Justice of the High Court.

24. Information under the categories (a), (b) and (c) and other information on the judicial side can be accessed/certified copies of documents and orders could be obtained by the parties to the proceedings in terms of the High Court Rules and the parties to the proceedings are entitled to the same. So far as the third parties are concerned, as of right, they are not entitled to access the information/obtain the certified copies of documents, orders and other proceedings. As per rules framed by the High Court, a third party can obtain the certified copies of the documents, orders or judgments or can have access to the information only by filing an application/affidavit and by stating the reason for which the information/copies of documents or orders are required. Insofar as on the administrative side i.e. categories (d), (e) and

(f), one can have access to the information or copies of the documents could be obtained under the rules framed by the

various High Courts or under the rules framed by the High Court under the RTI Act. Insofar as the disclosure of information as to the assets of the Judges held by the Chief Justice of the High Court, the same is now covered by the judgment of the Constitution Bench reported in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v.Subhash Chandra Agrawal, (2019) 16 SCALE 40.

9. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a

third parties right to secure the documents. Even in such cases,

it was directed and held that the party should approach the

concerned Court and secure the documents and information.

Para 27 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

27. As discussed earlier, the object of the RTI Act itself recognizes the need to protect the institutional interest and also to make optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The procedure to obtain certified copies under the High Court Rules is not cumbersome and the procedure is very simple - filing of an application/affidavit along with the requisite court fee stating the reasons for seeking the information. The information held by the High Court on the judicial side are the "personal information" of the litigants like title cases and family court matters, etc. Under the guise of seeking information under the RTI Act, the process of the court is not to be abused and information not to be misused.

10. To a similar effect is the judgment of Registrar, Supreme

Court of India v. R.S.Misra2, which is also approved by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information

Commissioner's case (1 supra). The Rules of Practice, as

applicable in this case also enable the petitioner to secure the

copies of the docket orders etc., by making a requisite application.

11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that

the petitioner does not have a 'right' to seek a Mandamus. He has

an effective method to secure the copies through the mechanism

provided under the Civil Rules of Practice.

12. The writ petition is totally misconceived and is therefore,

dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand