Delhi High Court
Pradeep Singh Jadon vs Union Of India & Anr. on 2 February, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7863/2013
PRADEEP SINGH JADON ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vaibhav Sharma and Mr. Ajayraj
Singh, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr.
Krishanu Barua, Advocate for R-1
Mr. R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel for R-2/CBI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 02.02.2015
1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. On the last date, Mr. Mahajan had sought time to obtain instructions
in the matter. Mr. Mahajan says that since, counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of respondent no.1, he has received the instructions to resist the
petition.
2.1 Mr. Sinha who appears for the CBI submits likewise.
3. I had sketched out the controversy in my previous order dated
12.01.2015. I do not intend to repeat the same. The relevant extract, that
is, paragraphs 12 to 17 of that order, are set out hereinbelow, for the sake
of convenience :-
"12. Briefly the case of the petitioner is that pursuant to RTI
application moved for seeking information, the CIC vide order
dated 08.11.2011, had granted relief.
12.1 The petitioner says that when an application was moved
under Section 20 on account of non-compliance by the CPIO, the
CIC vide order dated 16.03.2012 sought to modify its earlier order
dated 08.11.2011. This is the order which is impugned in the
amended petition, amongst others.
12.2 The records shows that, unfortunately, the petitioner instead
of approaching this court started a second round of RTI
proceeding. This culminated in the second impugned order being
passed by the CIC, which is, dated 17.07.2013.
12.3 By this order, CIC ruled that it could not review its earlier
order, in effect, order dated 16.03.2012.
13. In my view, while CIC is prima facie right in the view
taken, in the second round, however it appears to have come to an
erroneous conclusion when it passed the order dated 16.03.2012.
The reason for the same is, simple; if CIC could not review the
order dated 16.03.2012, it could not have similarly reviewed its
earlier order dated 08.11.2011.
14. On merits, the controversy pertains to the information
which the petitioner seeks from respondent no.1 pertaining to the
change in view with regard to the grant of sanction. The
department to which the petitioner belongs is, Department of
Telecom (DOT). DOT vide order dated 24.02.2010 had declined
sanction in respect of proceedings sought to be initiated against
the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act. DOT,
however, reconsidered this position and accorded sanction for
prosecution vide its order dated 19.4.2011.
14.1 The petitioner seeks information with regard to the change
in view. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions of
the petitioner, who is present in court, confines his prayer in the
writ petition to this aspect of the matter.
14.2 It is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents that
prosecution of the petitioner has already commenced and that the
trial is on.
15. At this stage, Mr. Mahajan, who appears for respondent
no.1 seeks an accommodation to obtain necessary instructions in
the matter. Mr. Sinha submits similarly.
16. List on 02.02.2015.
17. In case the respondents were so inclined as to resist the
relief sought for by the petitioner, they shall file their affidavit
within five (5) days from today..."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the only reason that
the respondents seek to withhold the information sought for, which relates to
the change of opinion, is, on account of the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005. The learned counsel says that since
investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed, unless the respondents
are able to demonstrate : as to how, the provision of information sought for,
would impede the prosecution of the petitioner, that information ought to be
given. In this behalf, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely
upon the following judgments of this court :-
(i). Judgment dated 05.03.2013, passed in WP(C) 7048/2011, titled :
Sudhir Ranjan Senapati Vs. Union of India and Ors.; and (ii). Judgment
dated 03.12.2007, passed in WP(C) 3114/2007, titled : Bhagat Singh Vs.
Chief Information Commissioner and Ors.
5. I have asked both Mr. Mahajan and Mr. Sinha to demonstrate to the
court as to how the information sought for by the petitioner will impede his
prosecution. Quite frankly, Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the CBI,
which is prosecuting the case, has not been able to demonstrate anything
which even comes close to an impediment.
6. Mr.Mahajan, however, says that since a counter affidavit has been
filed and a stand has been taken therein, he has instructions not to take a
contrary stand. This by itself does not carry the case of the first respondent
any further.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that there is
nothing placed on record which would establish, even remotely, that the
information sought for by the petitioner with regard to the change in view
for according sanction would impede petitioner's prosecution.
7.1 I may only note that information sought for by the petitioner, as
extracted in his application is, as follows :-
"..relevant pages [preceding 55/N, except 55/N (as it is already
received under RTI)] of note-sheets of file No.9-9/2009-Vig.I,
where CVC's 3rd advice dated 14.11.2010 was dealt and
decided.."
8. Taking into account what is noticed hereinabove by me and the view
taken by this court, in at least, two judgments, this writ petition will have to
be allowed. It is ordered accordingly.
9. Notably, though, for some strange reason, the respondents do not wish
to follow the law declared by the court. Repeated pronouncements by courts,
qua the same issue not only take up valuable public time, but also, does not,
augur well for the polity. All wings of the State are governed and bound by
the rule of law. Adherence to court orders is must to enable a civilised
society to subsist. Therefore, while allowing the petition, I am of the view
that costs of Rs.5,000/- will have be imposed on the respondents. It is
directed accordingly. Costs imposed shall be borne equally by both
respondents. The costs will be deposited with Registrar General, Juvenile
Justice Account of Delhi High Court, within one week from today. The
information referred to above will also be supplied to the petitioner within
the same timeframe.
10. With the aforesaid directions in place, the writ petition is disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2015
yg
