Bhanwarlal vs Rajasthan Information Commission, Jodhpur

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to make available the information sought and that orders dated 23/8/2018 (Annex.4) and dated 26/12/2018 (Annex.7) passed by the appellate authority as well as State Information Commission be set aside.

It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner sought information vide Annex.1 from the Superintending Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Nagur seeking information pertaining to the electricity connection in Khasra no. 43 and 140.

The application was responded by the Assistant Engineer that the requisite information could only be supplied by the owners of the khasra and that if the information about the names of Khatedars and the electricity connection is supplied, the entire information can be supplied.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by its order dated 22/3/2018 (Annex.4) came to the conclusion that as the information by the department is not maintained khasra wise but based on the names of the consumers and connection number, it was advised to the petitioner to indicate the electricity connection number and names of the consumers so that requisite information could be made available.

Dissatisfied with the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner filed second appeal before the State Information Commission. The State Information Commission by its order dated 26/12/2018 came to the conclusion that the determination made by the respondents was appropriate and consequently rejected the appeal.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority and the Commission were not justified in rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioner as the requisite information was not made available to the petitioner.

Submissions have been made that once the petitioner has sought specific information pertaining to the connections available at a particular khasra, it was required of the respondents to supply the same and on failure thereof the appellate authority and the Commission should have ordered for supply of information, instead the appeals have been rejected and, therefore, the orders be set aside and the respondents be directed to supply the requisite information.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

A bare look at the application made by the petitioner (Annex.1) reveals that the same apparently is in the nature of fishing inquiry and the petitioner while seeking the information does not want to commit the fact that the particular khasra in question was in whose possession and wants to seek information by giving absolutely vague particulars and has made a reference to the dispute which is going on between the petitioner and other persons. In the circumstances, the Information Officer of the respondent department was justified in seeking specific particulars from the petitioner and indicating that rest of the information be sought from the owners of the particular khasra. The two appellate authorities also consequently were justified in rejecting the appeals.

The provisions for seeking information cannot be permitted to be used for holding a fishing inquiry and/or seek information by making allegations in the application and then to use the information supplied for collateral purposes.

In view thereof, no case for interference in the orders impugned is made out.

The writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.