Delhi High Court
Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 February, 2014
Author: Manmohan
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 83/2014
DR. NEELAM BHALLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R. Sathish, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Advocate for
R-1 and 2.
Reserved on : 6th January, 2014
% Date of Decision : 3rd February, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J:
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22nd
August, 2013 passed by the Central Information Commission (for short
'CIC'). The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced
hereibelow:-
"4. It is a matter of fact that Shri Bundela had provided
inaccurate and incorrect information to the appellant but
Shri Bundela's contention that he had transmitted
information as received by him from CPIO of RAC cannot
be disregarded. It is important to bear in mind that Shri
Bundela was not the holder of information. The holder of
information was CPIO, RAC. Whatever information was
forwarded to Shri Bundela by CPIO, RAC, he transmitted
the same to the appellant.
5. As to the question of award of compensation to the
appellant for supply of inaccurate and incorrect
information, it has to be kept in mind that DRDO is an
exempted organization under section 24 of the RTI Act.
This exemption is unequivocal and binding. DRDO does
not fall under the ambit of RTI Act. Even so, by custom, this
Commission had carved out a small jurisdiction for supply
of establishment related information to the information
seekers, to the total exclusion of tactical and strategic
information. Even, if the appellant's contention that
detriment has been caused to her due to supply of
inaccurate and incorrect information is accepted, in my
opinion, it would not be legally sound either to punish Shri
Bundela or to award compensation to the appellant. In
view of the above, I am constrained to close this matter.
6. Even so, before parting with this matter, I would like to
caution Shri Bundela to exercise due diligence in
responding to the RTI application in future."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite categorical
finding by the CIC that the provision of the Right to Information Act, 2005
(for short 'RTI Act') had been abused by the respondents for oblique
purpose of justifying punitive transfer, the CIC erred in not recommending
disciplinary action under Section 20(2) of RTI Act against respondent nos.
3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 as well as in not awarding compensation to the petitioner.
3. In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner relied
upon the judgment of this Court in Mujibur Rehman Vs. Central
Information Commission, W.P.(C) No. 3845/2007 decided on 28th April,
2009 wherein it has been held as under:-
"15. In the above circumstances, Court is of the opinion that
the impugned order to the extent it discharges the sixth
respondent of the notice under Section 19 (8) and does not
impose the penalty sought for has to be declared illegal. In this
case, the penalty amount (on account of the delay between
28.12.2005 and the first week of May, 2006 when the
information was given) would work out to Rs.25,000/-. The
third respondent is hereby directed to deduct the same from
the sixth respondent's salary in five equal installments and
deposit the amount, with the Commission."
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the
view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation
under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to
corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve
out any further exemption. The Supreme Court in Kania Lal Sur Vs.
Parmnidhi Sadhukhan, AIR 1957 SC 907 has held as under:-
"6. ..........However, in applying these observations to the
provisions of any statute, it must always be borne in mind that
the first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of
the Legislature must be found in the words used by the
Legislature itself. If the words used are capable of one
construction only then it would not be open to the Courts to
adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that
such hypothetical construction is more consistent with the
alleged object and policy of the Act............"
(emphasis supplied)
5. In Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and Others Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Otheres, (2001) 4 SCC 534 the Supreme Court has held
as under:-
"26..........The golden rule is that the words of a statute must
prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another
rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear,
plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect
to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that
the words themselves best declare the intention of the law-giver.
The courts have adhered to the principle that efforts should be
made to give meaning to each and every word used by the
legislature and it is not a sound principle of construction to
brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite
surpluses,......."
(emphasis supplied)
6. This Court is of the opinion that the judgment in Mujibur Rehman
Vs. Central Information Commission (supra) offers no assistance to the
petitioner as the respondent-organisation in the said case was not in the
schedule of exempted organisations.
7. In any event, in the opinion of this Court it is normally not open in
writ jurisdiction to tamper or vary the punishment that has been awarded by
the CIC. In V. Ramana vs. A.P.SRTC and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 338, the
Supreme Court has held that, "To put it differently unless the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the
conscience of the court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference."
Consequently, in the present case as the punishment imposed does not shock
the conscience of this Court, the present writ petition is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 03, 2014
rn
