SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT Vs. KAMTA PRASAD MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the direction to supply information to the first respondent as regards details of the process of grant of sanction for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988[ For short, 'the Act of 1988'] as well as the response of the Lokayukt to the queries made by him on various points. According to the appellant, by virtue of Notification dtd. 25/8/2011 issued by the General Administration Department[ For short, 'GAD'] of the State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of power under Sec. 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005[ For short, 'the Act of 2005'] and in view of Sec. 8(1)(h) thereof, it could not have been directed to supply such information. On the other hand, according to the first respondent, the information sought is liable to be provided as there is no legal impediment in doing so.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the first respondent while serving as Town Inspector, Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni came to be implicated by the Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh under the Act of 1988 in a trap case. A First Information Report was registered on 11/4/2017. The Home Department of the State Government on 20/5/2020 granted sanction for his prosecution. The first respondent desired information with regard to the decision making process in the grant of sanction and thus moved an application dtd. 1/7/2020 under Sec. 6(1) of the Act of 2005. The request for supply of information having been turned down, the proceedings reached the State Information Commission[ For short, 'the Commission'] at the behest of the first respondent which, however, rejected the appeal filed by him on 16/12/2020. According to the Commission, the first respondent was not entitled to be supplied the said information in view of Sec. 8(1)(h) of the Act of 2005. Being aggrieved, the first respondent approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh[For short, 'the High Court']. The Division Bench after hearing the first respondent found that the investigation in the criminal proceedings was complete and therefore the first respondent could not be denied such information by relying upon Sec. 8(1)(h) of the Act of 2005. The appellant was, accordingly, directed to supply the information sought by the first respondent as per his application dtd. 1/7/2020. Being aggrieved by this direction, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the High Court erred in directing the appellant to supply the information sought by the first respondent. According to him, in view of the provisions of Sec. 8(1)(h) of the Act of 2005, the appellant was exempted from disclosing the information sought by the first respondent inasmuch as that information was likely to impede the process of investigation of the criminal proceedings that had been initiated against him. He further submitted that pursuant to Sec. 24(4) of the Act of 2005, the GAD of the State Government had issued a Notification on 25/8/2011 by virtue of which the Act of 2005 was not made applicable to the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of Lokayukt Organisation[For short, 'the High Court']. The investigation against the first respondent having been carried out by the SPE, it was not permissible to supply the information sought by him as the provisions of the Act of 2005 were inapplicable. The High Court failed to notice the provisions of Sec. 8(1)(h) of the Act of 2005 and directed supply of such information. Reference was made to the Notification dtd. 25/8/2011 before the High Court but it was not taken into consideration. On a plain reading of the same, it was clear that the provisions of the Act of 2005 were not applicable to the SPE. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court was liable to be set aside and the order passed by the Commission ought to be restored.