AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner herein had filed an application on September 15, 2017 before the Deputy Registrar (Administration), the Public Information Officer
under the Right to Information Act, Appellate Side, High Court, Calcutta seeking information with regard to three queries. On October 25, 2017 his
query being serial no. 3(I)(B) was answered. However, with regard to the other queries the authority concerned had sought for more time to reply
to the same.
The writ petitioner thereafter filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2005â€)
on November         6, 2017 before the Registrar (Administration), the Appellate Authority under Right to Information Act, Appellate
Side, High Side, Calcutta. By an order dated January 30, 2018 the Appellate Authority passed an order directing the Public Information Officer to
obtain the information with regard to query nos. 3(I)(B) and 3(I)(C) from the office of the Learned Registrar General-cum-Secretary, Selection
Board, High Court, Appellate Side, Calcutta and on obtaining the said information to communicate the same to the writ petitioner.
Owing to delay in the said process and lack of any information being received by the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner was compelled to file this writ
petition. The matter was heard on April 2, 2018 and April 4, 2018 but the respondents sought time to obtain the information and communicate the
same to the writ petitioner.
When the matter was called on today the writ petitioner sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit containing the order passed by the respondent
authorities dated April 2, 2018 wherein it has been stated that the queries relating to the two pending issues cannot be answered as the information
falls within Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act of 2005.
It is to be noted that the Writ Court does not act as a court of appeal and in the event of a statutory appeal being present, the Writ Court should stay
its hand till the procedure provided under the statute is completed. It is only under exceptional circumstances wherein the principles of natural
justice are violated or there is a blatant mala fide exercise of power or the authority acts without jurisdiction that the Writ Court interferes. In the
present case no such exceptional circumstances are present.
I am accordingly of the opinion that the writ petitioner should now be relegated to take appropriate steps as allowed to him under the Act of 2005.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs.