WPMS/2544/2017
2021 Latest Caselaw 3407 UK

                   Office Notes, reports, orders
SL.                or proceedings or directions
          Date                                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                  and Registrar's order with
                           Signatures


      02.09.2021
                                                   WPMS No. 2544 of 2017
                                                   With
                                                   Review Application No. MCC/349/2020
                                                   Delay Condonation Application in Review Application No. CLMA No.
                                                   6647/2020
                                                   Stay Application No. CLMA/6648/2020
                                                   Miss. Application with Objection No. IA/16292/2021
                                                   Miss. Application with reply No. IA/16293/2021
                                                   Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General, along with Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, Standing Counsel, for the State/petitioners.

Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent(s).

The Delay Condonation Application, filed in support of the Review Application, seeking condonation of 441 days delay, which has chanced in filing the Review Application since has been satisfactorily explained, is hereby condoned. Accordingly, the Delay Condonation Application would stand allowed.

The petitioners to the present writ petition has questioned the impugned order dated 06.06.2007, which was passed by the State Information Commission, by virtue of which certain informations, which were sought were denied to be granted, in view of the exception created by Section 24(4) of the Act, as it related to the information pertaining to the vigilance department and its officers and subsequent initiation of the recovery proceedings against the erring officials, after conducting the inquiry.

The said order was made as a subject matter of challenge in an Appeal preferred under Section 19(3) of the Act, the Appellate Court had passed an order dated 12.04.2017, whereby the Appellate Court, in an Appeal No. 23155 of 2016, had passed an order, which was impugned in the writ petition, to the extent, it had issued a direction, as contained in the appellate order dated 12.04.2017, against which, apparently, at that point of time, the second appeal was already pending consideration before the competent 2nd Appellate Forum, created under the Act.

The second appeal was decided by the impugned order dated 06.06.2017, whereby the State Information Commission has decided the matter, directing the Information Officer to supply the information sought for by the applicant within one month.

Ultimately, before this Court, the argument, which was confined to be agitated by the respective counsels for the parties was to the implications of Section 24(4) and its proviso, whether the exemption clause, would be made applicable in the perspective of the nature of information, which has been sought for under the Act. The writ petition was decided by the judgment dated 14.05.2019, issuing a direction to supply the information to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment and in an event of failure to supply the said information, the respondents were made liable to pay the penalty as directed to be imposed by the impugned appellate order which was under challenge. On account of the fact that the appeal itself was pending consideration, the writ petition was decided, with all the scope of grounds left open to the Appellate Court to proceed with the Appeal, and to decide the same on its own merits.

After having heard the learned counsel for the review applicant, in fact, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. N.S. Pundir, had argued that the adjudication made by this Court on 14.05.2019, was a positive direction for issuing the information and in an eventuality of non supply of the information, he would be made liable to pay the penalty. But, however, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact, that whatsoever imposition of the penalty or supplying the information, which was directed to be given was always made to be the subject matter of deciding the Second Appeal, which was pending.

For the reasons aforesaid that re-

scrutinisation of the writ petition on its own merits, cannot be brought within the ambit of the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, as all the contentions are still left open to be argued before the Second Appellate Court, before whom the appeal is pending consideration.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any merits in the Review Application, the Review Application is accordingly rejected.

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 02.09.2021 Mahinder/