Hansi Rawat & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 192 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Date of decision: 11th January, 2013

+                              LPA No.785/2012

      HANSI RAWAT & ANR.                                 ..... Appellants
                  Through:            Mr. Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Adv.

                                  Versus

    PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.        ..... Respondents

Through: None.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 15.10.2012 of the

learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.6556/2012 preferred by the

appellants. The said writ petition was preferred challenging the order dated

30.08.2012 of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissing the

Second Appeal preferred by the appellants against the order dated

21.05.2011 of the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority

had dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants against the information

dated 18.03.2011 provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the

respondent Bank in response to the application dated 19.02.2011 of the

appellants under the provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005.

2. The First Appellate Authority in its order dated 21.05.2011 held that

though information sought by the appellants had been provided to the

appellants, the grievance of the appellants was that the information supplied

was misleading and wrong. The First Appellate Authority held that

information in possession of the respondent Bank had already been provided

and no opinion as sought in the application could be provided. The First

Appellate Authority also did not find any discrepancy in the information

provided.

3. The CIC in its order noted, that the appellant No.2 had been removed

from service of the respondent Bank; that the appellants had sought

information on 39 points; that the grievance of the appellants was that

misleading and vague information had been provided on the points raised in

the RTI application; that the appellants had filed 50 to 60 RTI applications in

their names, separately, together as well as in the names of their friends and

also through some advocates, on the same subject and on the same

questions; that the appellants are misusing the RTI Act needlessly. The CIC

further, on examination of the record did not find any reason to interfere

with the decision of the PIO and the First Appellate Authority of the

respondent Bank.

4. Before the learned Single Judge also, the contention of the appellants

was that the information given is not correct. The learned Single Judge went

through the RTI application of the appellants and the response thereto and

found that the information sought had already been furnished. The learned

Single Judge has further observed that the only obligation of the respondent

Bank, from which information had been sought, under the RTI Act, was to

give information available and no further and the said obligation had been

fulfilled.

5. The counsel for the appellants does not controvert the factum of a

number of RTI applications having been filed by the appellants themselves

or through other persons to the PIO of the respondent Bank. He has

however drawn attention to the information sought at serial Nos.11 to 14 and

26 of the RTI application and the response thereto and on the basis thereof

has contended that information has not been provided and / or the

information provided is incorrect.

6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication

of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2

from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending

consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to

enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as

to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the

respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in

the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act

cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the

correctness of the information furnished. Moreover, there is a categorical

finding of the CIC, of the appellants misusing the RTI Act, as is also evident

from the plethora of RTI applications filed by the appellants. In view of the

said factual findings of the CIC and which is not interfered by the learned

Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned

Single Judge.

7. We do not find any merit in the appeal which is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE th JANUARY 11 , 2013 'gsr'