SURENDRA AGGARWAL Vs. CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Surendra Agarwal has challenged the legal validity of the order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Uttarakhand, whereby it has been expected from the District Magistrate, Dehradun to take cognizance of the observations made by the Commission and to invoke his authority for taking appropriate action against the delinquent Surendra Agarwal, so that the officers/ministerial staff in the office of the State may discharge their duties without fear and favour, nay the persons seeking bona fide information(s) in exercise of their right, conferred under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), may not feel ashamed or embarrassed, inasmuch as, the genuine persons indulged in the noble calling of journalism may not be in desperation. Rather, a message should go to each and every government servant to act in accordance with law and to supply the information as postulated under the Act. Feeling aggrieved, Mr. Surendra Agarwal has come up before this Court by means of this writ petition. To understand the background, it is pertinent to note that Mr. Surendra Agarwal, posing himself to be the President at state level of the organization under the title RTI Mission Uttarakhand, was found by the Commission indulged in seeking information from innumerable offices of the State Government asserting his right under the Act. In the impugned judgment crafted by the Commission elaborately, inasmuch as, running in thirty pages, it is divulged that the information was sought by Mr. Agarwal, regarding the personal details of Supply Inspector Ms. Ganga Joshi, another Supply Inspector Ms. Suman Majhola and the District Supply Officer Mr. Shyam Lal Arya, where for he moved three distinct applications in the months of January, February and March, 2013 respectively. These information(s) were replied by the Public Information Officer of the concerned office as far as possible and permissible under the Act with the remark that if the applicant was not satisfied with the information, so supplied, then he himself was, at his liberty, could inspect the relevant record in the office.

(2.) Feeling disgruntled with the respective replies, Mr. Aggarwal preferred first appeal to the Officer viz. District Collector, as envisaged under the Act, who endorsed the reply of the Public Information Officer and rejected the appeal.

(3.) So, the petitioner Surendra Aggarwal preferred three second appeals which were collectively rejected by the Information Commissioner vide the impugned order.