Hitesh Bhagvanji Soni vs Gujarat Information Commissioner & 2 Other(S)

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J

[1] By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India a challenge is made by the petitioner to an order dated 21.12.2017.

[2] The background of the facts is that the petitioner was filed an application on 30.09.2016 under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 for seeking information about the construction of 11000 Check Dam, Water Ponds and Toilets in detail (Name of Village, Number of Check Dams and Expenditure) and also sought for the action taken by authority in regard to fraud and misappropriation of funds done by the then MLA. The said RTI application has been forwarded to the respondent authority, but the grievance of the petitioner is that the information which has been provided is not legible enough and thereby has not properly reacted to his request which has been made on 30.09.2016, and as such, has prayed for following reliefs:

"7.A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

B. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or in the nature of mandamus or issue a writ of certiorari and/or in the nature of certiorari, order or direction, to respondent no.2, 3 to providing the information as sought by the petitioner in his application dated 30/09/2016 (Annexure-B) and direct respondent no.1 authority to take firm action against respondent no.2 and 3 authority under the Right to Information act, 2005 for not providing information;

C. This Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to pass such other orders that may be just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner."

[3] When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Ravi B. Shah, learned advocate representing the petitioner has submitted that a specific request has been made by an application dated 30.09.2016 for providing certain informations which are mentioned in it but the authority has not provided any legible information, as per the wish of the petitioner and as such has submitted that appropriate relief be granted in the interest of justice so as to see that all legible information can be provided to the petitioner. No other submissions have been made.

[4] As against this, Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the authority has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that if the application of the petitioner dated 30.09.2016 is dealt with by the competent authority and a specific order to that effect has been passed on 21.12.2017 and by referring to paragraph 3, it has been submitted that the information has been specifically provided and the xerox copy of the same is perfectly legible, as has been stated by an authority who passed an order on 21.12.2017 and as such, the grievance voiced out by the petitioner is already redressed. It has also been contended that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact that his application dated 30.09.2016 at Annexure B has already been dealt with by an authority by virtue of order dated 21.12.2017 and as such, simply because, according to the petitioner, the same is not legible, it cannot be said that any mandamus, as prayed for in the petition can be sought as of right. Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that the information which has been provided by has already been supplied, the said part is not in dispute. Only grievance is that the copy which has been provided is not legible cannot be a ground for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction especially when same is seriously a disputed fact.

[5] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the order which has been passed by an authority on 21.12.2017, in which, apparently, it has been reflected that the application dated 30.09.2016 of the petition has been dealt with specific terms and in paragraph 3, it has been indicated clearly that the information has been provided and the xerox copy which has been furnished is specifically legible and when that be so, such disputed version of the petitioner cannot be the subject matter of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. Apart from this, the Court has also taken note of the fact that this application which has been requested to be dealt with has already been examined by an authority and specific order is passed to that effect on 21.12.2017. The said fact has not been brought to the notice of the Court nor the same is challenged. That being the position, the petition apparently suffers from the vice of suppression of material fact. Under these circumstances, the Court is left with no other issue but to dismiss the petition, as the same is bereft of material and particulars. Such disputed question of fact cannot be the subject matter of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. While parting with the order, it is made clear that any other material, if the petitioner is still seeking, the same can be prayed for by a separate application and this order will not come in the way of petitioner while making such a request before an authority with this observation petition stands dismissed, with no order as to cost.