DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Information is power. This is truer now, in this information age, than ever before. In a democracy this power of information which the public authorities possess is to be shared with the people. But at the same time, not every piece of information is to be made public. There is the public interest and democratic purpose in dissemination of information on the one hand and the competing private rights and national interests in general non-disclosure, on the other. This is recognized in the preamble to the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') itself:-

(2.) The petitioner (Delhi Development Authority), by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing / setting aside the order dated 22.09.2009 passed by the Central Information Commission upon a complaint filed by the respondent No.2. The petitioner also seeks the quashing / setting aside of the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Regulations') on the ground that they are ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTI Act'). In particular, the petitioner prays for the quashing of Chapter IV with specific emphasis on Regulation 20, which makes provision for the conduct of an inquiry. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that the Central Information Commission required the presence of the Vice-Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority in the course of proceedings before it and the fact that the said Vice-Chairman could not be present was commented upon adversely by the Central Information Commission. The point taken by the petitioner is that the Central Information Commission does not have the plenary powers, which are vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India and that, under the provisions of the RTI Act, the said Commission only has the power to summon and enforce the attendance of a person for the purposes of evidence. It was contended that the Commission does not have the power to direct the presence of the head of a public authority like the petitioner, especially when the concerned officers of such a public authority in the hierarchy under the RTI Act and senior officers have otherwise appeared before the Commission in deference to it. It was, therefore, contended that there was no power with the Commission to require the presence of the Vice-Chairman of the petitioner and consequently, there was no occasion for the Commission to make any adverse observation in the impugned order merely because the Vice-Chairman of the petitioner could not appear for the hearing on 03.09.2009. In the impugned order dated 22.09.2009, the Central Information Commission made the following observations:-

(3.) The operative portion of the decision taken by the Commission on 22.09.2009 is as under:-