Union Of India vs Tayyab Khan
2010 Latest Caselaw 4740 Del

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

26
+                           W.P.(C) 6864/2010

  UNION OF INDIA                                ..... Petitioner
                Through: Mr. S.K. Dubey with Ms. Lokitaksha Shukla,
                Advocate

                            versus

  TAYYAB KHAN                                         ..... Respondent
                       Through:

      CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

                        ORDER

%                       07.10.2010

CM APPL No. 13562/2010

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of.

WP (Civil) 6864/2010 & CM APPL No. 13561/2010 (for stay)

1. The challenge in this petition are to orders dated 30th July 2010 and 27th

August 2010 of the Central Information Commission („CIC‟). The CIC has,

while allowing the Respondent‟s appeal, directed the Petitioner to pay him

compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 („RTI Act‟).

2. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned counsel

for the Petitioner.

3. On 28th October 2009 the Respondent applied to the Central Public

Information Officer („CPIO‟) in the Ministry of Minority Affairs [„MOMA‟]

for a notified copy of the rules and regulations in respect of the staff of the

Central Wakf Council („CWC‟). The CPIO, MOMA transferred the

application of the Respondent to the CPIO of the CWC. But the requisite

information was still not provided. The Appellate Authority, by an order 9th

December 2009, directed the Respondent CPIO, MOMA to give a notified

copy of the rules and regulations of the service matters of the employees of

CWC to the Respondent. On 17th December 2009, the Respondent was

informed that "the notified copy of the rules and regulations on the service

matters of the staff of CWC is not available with the Ministry."

4. When the CIC heard the appeal it transpired that since the Rules were

themselves not notified in the gazette, they could not be provided to the

Respondent. The CIC observed that had either the CPIO of the CWC or the

CPIO of the MOMA given this information in time, the unnecessary

harassment caused to the Respondent in running from pillar to post could

have been avoided. In those circumstances, the CIC awarded a compensation

of Rs. 25, 000/- to the Respondent.

5. It was submitted by Mr. Dubey that the Respondent should have known

that there were no separate gazetted rules for the staff of the CWC and

therefore he was not prejudiced in any manner. This submission cannot be

accepted. It is only because of the Petitioner‟s doubt as to the existence of the

Rules, that he filed an application on 26th October 2009 under the RTI Act. In

fact, even the Appellate Authority proceeded on the footing that such Rules

were available. Indeed, if the Respondent had been told right in beginning that

there were no such rules, he would not have been compelled to approach the

Appellate Authority and thereafter the CIC to seek information which did not

exist. It is in this context that the CIC, in the impugned order, awarded

compensation to the Respondent. This Court finds no illegality vitiating the

impugned orders of the CIC.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not persuaded to

interfere with the impugned orders of the CIC.

7. This writ petition is dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J OCTOBER 07, 2010 rk