Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh At ... vs Andhra Pradesh Information ... on 12 October, 2023

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                 &
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                       W.P.No.40121 of 2022

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
High Court Buildings, Nelapadu,
Amaravati,
Rep. by its Registrar General & 2 others.


                                                         ...Petitioners

                              Versus

Andhra Pradesh Information Commission,
1st Floor, MGM Capital,
Abutting NH-16 Service Road,
Chinna Kakani, Near Little Village Restaurant,
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522 508,
Rep. by its State Information Commissioner & another.

                                                       ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Eerla Satheesh Kumar

Counsel for respondent No.2 : -

Dt.:12.10.2023

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

1. The present petition has been filed inter alia by the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Registrar (Judicial)-cum-State HCJ & TMR, J

Public Information Officer, under the Right to Information Act,

2005 questioning the order, dated 12.10.2022, passed by the

Andhra Pradesh Information Commission whereby directions have

been issued to the State Public Information Officer, Registrar

(Judicial) of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to furnish the

relevant information to respondent No.2 herein.

2. It appears from the record that an application was filed by

respondent No.2, with the State Public Information Officer cum

Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking the

following:

i) Copies of the adjournments in O.A.No.3440 of 2017 and

C.A.No.80 of 2018 on the file of High Court of Andhra

Pradesh.

ii) The address and designation of the appellate authority.

3. Insofar as the address and designation of the appellate

authority is concerned, the same was communicated to the

applicant/respondent No.2 herein, however, the prayer of the

applicant with regard to copies of the adjournments in O.A.No.3440

of 2017, the applicant/respondent No.2 was informed that the

prayer cannot be entertained and that he should file an application HCJ & TMR, J

for certified copies of the said document by paying the appropriate

fee.

4. Against the said communication, an appeal was preferred

before the Appellate Authority-cum-Registrar (General) of the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh, who dismissed the appeal by virtue of

order dated 04.05.2022, upholding the order passed by the SPIO

dated 10.03.2022 by placing reliance upon the Apex Court

Judgment rendered in Chief Information Commissioner vs. High

Court of Gujarat and another1.

5. Aggrieved of the order and Appeal passed by the Appellate

Authority the respondent No.2 preferred a Second Appeal under

Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the State Information

Commission/respondent No.1, which was allowed by virtue of order

dated 12.10.2022.

6. What was observed and ordered by the State Information

Commission is reproduced hereunder:

"Smt. K. Kamala, Advocate is present before this Commission on behalf of Mr. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, Advocate who is appearing for State Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority.

2020 (4) SCC 702 HCJ & TMR, J

She has submitted that the State Public Information Officer has passed order dated 10-03-2022 by stating that the Appellant is informed that his application in respect of pending/final disposal of cases before High Court of AP, correspondence with the parties and third parties cannot be entertained and the Appellant can file an application for certified copies by paying appropriate fee. She also submitted that the First Appellate Authority has also not interfered with the order passed by the SPIO.

The State Public Information Officer has to direct the concerned to verify the list of pending cases of A.P. Administrative Tribunal which were transferred to A.P. High Court and find out Writ Petition number to C.A.No.80/2018 in O.A.No.3440 of 2017.

In view of the above, the State Public Information Officer is directed to furnish the Writ Petition Number to the C.A.No.80/2018 in O.A.No.3440 of 2017 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal on free of cost within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the order and submit compliance report to this Commission through Registered Post and through Email to [email protected] within 5 weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

7. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the State Information

Commission, the present writ petition has been filed primarily on

the ground that the order is contrary to the ratio and the judgment

rendered by the Apex Court in Chief Information Commissioner vs.

High Court of Gujarat and another (supra).

8. What was held by the Apex Court in paragraphs 31, 39, 40

and 41 of the judgment (supra) is reproduced hereunder:

HCJ & TMR, J

"31. We fully endorse the above views of the Delhi High Court. When the High Court Rules provide for a mechanism that the information/certified copies can be obtained by filing an application/affidavit, the provisions of the RTI Act are not to be resorted to.

39. The information held by the High Court on the judicial side is the personal information of the parties to the litigation or information furnished by the Government in relation to a particular case. There may be information held by the High Court relating to the cases which have been obtained from the various tribunals in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For instance, the matters arising out of the orders by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and other tribunals over which the High Court exercises the supervisory jurisdiction. The orders/judgments passed by the High Court, though are the documents which are concerned with the rights and liabilities of the parties to the litigation. Under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the Central Public Information Officer or the appellate authority may order disclosure of personal information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies disclosure. Insofar as the High Court Rules are concerned, if the information or certified copies of the documents/record of proceedings/ orders on the judicial side of the Court is required, all that the third party is required to do is to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking such information. On being satisfied about the reasons for requirement of the certified copy/disclosure of information, the Court or the officer concerned would order for grant of certified copies. As discussed earlier, Order 13 Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules also stipulate the same procedure insofar as the third party seeking certified copy of the documents/records.

40. Yet another contention advanced is that the information held by the High Court may be furnished to the applicant by following HCJ & TMR, J

the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act. Section 11 of the Act deals with the third-party information. As per Section 11 of the Act, if the requisite information or record or part thereof has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, then the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, within five days of receipt of the request give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether such information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about the disclosure of the information.

41. We do not find any merit in the above submission and that such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the information/ certified copies of the documents. When there is an effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reasons for which the certified copies are required, we do not find any justification for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources which the Preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid."

9. From a reading of the order impugned passed by the State

Information Commission, it can be seen that even when the First

Appellate Authority had in its order made a specific mention to the

Judgment of the Apex Court (supra), it was neither mentioned by HCJ & TMR, J

the State Information Commission much less distinguished or dealt

with in any manner in the order impugned. Considering the fact

that law on this subject was clear and had also been brought to the

notice of the State Information Commission, the Commissioner

ought to have followed the same in letter and spirit, instead of

passing the order impugned. The order impugned being

unsustainable is accordingly set aside.

10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.