Uoi vs Central Information Commission & ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1859 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                     LPA 95/2009 & C.M. No.2919/2009


        UOI                                              ..... Appellant
                           Through: Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG with
                           Mr. Dalip Mehra, Advocate.

                      versus


        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR.
                                                 ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior
                      Advocate with Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Advocate.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                      ORDER

% 05.05.2009

1. The present appeal is preferred against the order of the learned

Single Judge dated 18th December, 2008, whereby the learned Single

Judge directed the appellant to supply a copy of the office rule/norms

dated 15th June, 2004 to the respondent No. 2. Earlier writ petition

had been filed being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4187 of 2007 by the

appellant challenging the order dated 7th May, 2007 passed by the

Central Information Commission (in short 'CIC'), whereby the CIC

had directed the appellant to produce documents/records before the

CIC qua the process of appointment of the Foreign Secretary. An

order was passed by this Court in the writ petition staying the

operation of the said order of the CIC dated 7th May, 2007. As per

the appellant, these documents are part of the Cabinet notes and

being matters of State secrecy cannot be divulged to the respondent

No. 2. Moreover, it is also the case of the appellant that the order of

the CIC dated 7th May, 2007 was under challenge in the writ petition

and the operation of the same had been stayed by this Court. If that

be the position, then as per the appellant, the learned Single Judge

ought not to have directed supply of documents to the respondent

No. 2 as prayed for by respondent No. 2 in its application. These very

records, as per the appellant, had been called for by the CIC for its

perusal and the said order had been stayed by this Court. In view of

the same, as per the appellant, the learned Single Judge could not

have directed that the said documents be supplied to respondent No.

2.

2. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 that the

papers/documents which had been asked for by respondent No. 2

vide its application C.M. No. 12444 of 2008 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.

4187 of 2007 were office rules/norms dated 15th June, 2004 which

were placed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short

'CAT') in O.A. No. 1045 of 2007 and had been specifically referred to

in the judgment and order dated 21st August, 2007 passed by the

CAT. Further it is contended on behalf of respondent No. 2 that the

said documents did not form part of the Cabinet notes as contended

by the appellant.

3. After some arguments, both the parties have fairly agreed to

the matter being remanded back to the learned Single Judge. It is

agreed by the parties that the learned Single Judge would decide all

the issues raised in the writ petition including the issue raised by

respondent No. 2 in its application. The learned Single Judge would

also decide the question whether the documents asked for by

respondent No. 2 form part of the Cabinet papers/notes or not.

4. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the learned Single

Judge for deciding all the issues raised in the writ petition as also in

the application moved by respondent No. 2 as expeditiously as

possible. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above stated

terms. The pending application also stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 05, 2009 sb