TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioners preferred appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated nil, endorsement dated 7-12-2011, directed for supply of the information and also warned the Public Information Officer to be careful in future. As the information was still not provided, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Commission, which was dismissed by holding that the petitioners have no right to invoke the provisions of the Act in terms of Section 3 thereof, as only a citizen individually has the right to seek information and not a group of citizens. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners, who are three in number, are citizens of India. The application was filed by them to avoid multiplicity of litigation as the information sought by them was common. It could be sought even by each one of them individually. It is not that if three persons had approached the authority under the Act jointly, their individual status would change. It will not become a legal entity as such different from their individual status which may not be termed as citizens of India, such as society or company. He further submitted that before taking up the appeal filed by the petitioners, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a at the time of his birth, shall be a citizen of India by birth. 9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners, who had filed application before the authority under the Act, were born in India after commencement of the Constitution. They had filed a joint application seeking certain information. The question is as to whether their application/appeal could be rejected on the ground that they being group of individuals cannot be termed as citizens? Three individuals, who had filed the application before the Public Information Officer or the appeal before the Commission, have not constituted any separate legal entity, as a consequence of which they have lost their individual status. It has not become a legal entity in itself, as may be in case of constitution of a company, which has separate legal entity. It was held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in N. Khadervali Saheb (Dead) by LRs and another v. N. Gudu Sahib (Dead) and others - (2003) 3 SCC 229 that even a partnership firm does not have an independent entity, though in that case some individuals by signing a document termed as partnership deed join together to carry on some business or other activity givin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant parts thereof are extracted below : "99. .........This discussion safely leads us to conclude that the functions of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners may be better performed by a legally qualified and trained mind possessing the requisite experience. The same should also be applied to the designation of the first appellate authority, i.e., the senior officers to be designated at the Centre and State levels. However, in view of language of Section 5, it may not be necessary to apply this principle to the designation of Public Information Officer. 100. Moreover, as already noticed, the Information Commission, is performing quasi-judicial functions and essence of its adjudicatory powers is akin to the Court system. It also possesses the essential trappings of a Court and discharges the functions which have immense impact on the rights/obligations of the parties. Thus, it must be termed as a judicial Tribunal which requires to be manned by a person of judicial mind, expertise and experience in that field............. xx xx &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter need not be remanded back for the reason that effective relief has already been granted to the petitioners and the respondents have undertaken to supply them copy of the rules and the petitioners are not entitled to any further information. 13. The grievance raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in the present case is also that before deciding the appeal, the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing by the Commission. It cannot be disputed that no one can be condemned unheard. In case, the petitioners had filed appeal, minimum that was required was intimation of date of hearing to them so as to enable them to appear before the Commission and present their case. Reference can be made to Sayeedur Rehman v. State of Bihar, (1973) 3 SCC 333; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405; Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 664; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23781 of 2007 - Indu Bhushan Dwivedi v. State of Jharkhand and another, decided on 5-7-2010. The same having not been done, it has resulted in prejudice to the petitioners. This ground alone is also suffici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there has to be specific order in the file fixing the case in a particular bench. The aforesaid order should either be passed in the presence of the counsels or the parties when it listed at the Principal Bench or it should be ensured that the notice has, in fact, been served upon both the parties. Whatever the appeal is taken up for hearing there has to be an interim order on record passed on that date showing the proceedings. One of the method to ensure service of notice on the parties could be through the concerned Regional office of Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, as the establishment normally pertains to that area. We are living in the era of technology. For the means of communication, the same should be utilised. Wherever the establishments are having fax or email I.D. efforts should be made to send a copy of the notice through that mode as well. In case it is successful, this can be adopted as the method of service of notice in future. In addition thereto, the counsel who filed the appeal should also be informed. The same can also be by way of emails. At the time of filing of the appeal, it should be a requirement that the party, and the counsel who has filed the app....