2015 (2) TMI 1156 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses writ petition challenging jurisdiction of appellate authority under RTI Act

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. It held that the petitioner-trust, established under the ... RTI - whether the petitioner-trust can be allowed to contend that it is not covered by the Right to Information Act? - Held that:- Indisputably, the petitioner-trust is a body constituted under law made by the State Legislature, namely, Shri Sanwaliaji Temple Act, 1992, it has to be thus held as “public authority” in the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. What the Chief Information Commissioner has directed in the present case is that the petitioner-trust should provide to respondent no.3 the copy of agenda of the Board meeting dated 01.12.2013, copy of resolution passed by the Board in the said meeting and copy of the proceedings registered of that day. None of these informations is covered by any of the exception clauses referred in list of exemption from disclosure of certain/specific kind of informations. The Information Commission has examined the matter thoroughly and has upheld the order passed by the appellate authority. This court, on analysis of the impugned order, does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Information Commission. Neither the desired information can be said to fall in any of the exception clauses, nor can the petitioenr-trust claim to be not a public authority in the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Issues:Jurisdiction of the appellate authority, Definition of 'public authority' under Right to Information Act, 2005, Application of Section 8 exemptions to requested information.Jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority:The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the appellate authority, arguing that the order passed was without jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the Chief Executive Officer of the trust does not fall under the definition of 'public authority' as per Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The duties of the Chief Executive Officer were prescribed in the Shri Sanwaliaji Temple Act, 1992, and it was argued that the officer is not obligated to provide information under the Act. The petitioner asserted that as an autonomous body not funded by the government, it is not covered by the provisions of the Right to Information Act, and thus, information about its activities cannot be accessed by the public.Definition of 'Public Authority' under RTI Act:The court analyzed whether the petitioner-trust could claim to be exempt from the Right to Information Act. The definition of 'public authority' in Section 2(h) of the Act includes any body established under laws made by the State Legislature. The petitioner-trust, constituted under the Shri Sanwaliaji Temple Act, 1992, was deemed a 'public authority' under this definition. The court held that being established under a law made by the State Legislature, the petitioner-trust falls under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.Application of Section 8 Exemptions to Requested Information:The court examined whether the information requested by the respondent fell under the exemptions listed in Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. These exemptions cover various categories of information that may be withheld, such as matters affecting national security, court-restricted information, breach of parliamentary privilege, and more. The Chief Information Commissioner directed the petitioner-trust to provide specific information to the respondent, which did not fall under any of the exemption clauses. The court upheld the Information Commission's decision, finding no grounds for the petitioner-trust to refuse providing the requested information.In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner-trust is considered a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the requested information did not qualify for any exemptions under Section 8. The court found no merit in the petition and summarily dismissed it, along with the stay application.