PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Vs. ARUN KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the Public Information Officer of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (for short, 'this Court') calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the order passed by respondent No.2 herein (Chhattisgarh State Information Commission) by which the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (for short, 'the Information Commission') has set aside the order passed by the Public Information Officer as well as by the appellate authority and directed under Section 19(8)(a)(i) of the Right to Information Act , 2005 (for short, 'the Act of 2005') to provide the information sought for by the information seeker / respondent No.1 herein, dubbing the order as arbitrary and contrary to the provisions contained in Section 8(1)(e) of the Act of 2005.

(2.) The information seeker / respondent No.1 herein made an application to the Public Information Officer of this Court invoking Section 6(1) of the Act of 2005 seeking copy of oath taken and subscribed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Agarwal (now His Lordship has demitted the office). The Public Information Officer rejected the said application in light of exemption provided under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act of 2005 which was affirmed by the first appellate authority in an appeal preferred by respondent No.1 herein by order dated 3- 12-2015. However, the second appellate authority / the Information Commission interfered with the order passed by the two authorities as stated above and directed for furnishing the information sought for by respondent No.1 herein i.e. copy of oath taken and subscribed by the two Hon'ble Judges of this Court as mentioned above under Sections 8 and 19(8)(a)(i) of the Act of 2005. Feeling aggrieved against that order this writ petition has been filed in which the order passed by the Information Commission i.e. the second appellate authority has been called in question principally on the ground that it is violative of Section 8(1)(e) of the Act of 2005 and further on the ground that the two authorities had already satisfied that the larger public interest is not involved warranting the disclosure of such information and the Information Commission ought not to have interfered with by the orders of the two authorities (that is the Public Information Officer and the appellate authority).

(3.) No return has been filed by the respondents though opportunities were granted to them.