RAJKUMAR KISHANLAL AWASTHI Vs. BAGVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this contempt petition, the Petitioner has alleged breach of the order dated 29th May, 2007 passed by the First Appellate Authority and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Circle III, Mumbai. The order is passed by the said Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). By the said order, copies of the certain documents were ordered to be provided to the Petitioner. The issue which arises for consideration is whether an Appellate Authority under the said Act is a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1971"). Under Section 2(b) of the said Act of 1971, it is provided that a willful disobedience to any judgment or order or process of a Court is a Civil Contempt.

(2.) The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited attention of the Court to Section 19 of the said Act. The submission of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the powers of adjudication have been vested in the Appellate Authority. Her submission is that the Appellate Authority is empowered to decide the rights between the parties after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority has thus all the trappings of a Court for the purposes of Section 2(b) of the said Act of 1971. The Learned Counsel pointed out that under the said Act, even a second appeal is provided against the decision in the first appeal and that the said appeal is maintainable before the State Information Commission. The Learned Counsel pointed out that as the First Appellate Authority has all the trappings of the Court including the right to penalize for the breach of its order. Therefore, a breach of the order of the Appellate Authority will be the breach of the order of the Court within the meaning of the said Act. The Learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Shaikh Mohammedbhikhan Hussainbhai and etc. Vs. The Manager, Chandrabhanu Cinema and others etc., 1986 CrLJ 1543. The Learned Counsel submitted that all the tests laid down by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in paragraph No. 23 of the said decision are applicable to the present case. The Learned Counsel also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of K.C. Nanda Vs. Certificate Officer, 1971 CrLJ 742. The Learned Counsel invited attention of the Court to the definition of the Court under the Indian Penal Code. The Learned Counsel also relied upon the definition of the word "Judge" and "Court of Justice". Lastly, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Brajnandan Sinha Vs. Jyoti Narain, 1956 AIR(SC) 66. She pointed out that the Apex Court was dealing with the question whether the Commissioner under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 was a "Court" under Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. The Learned Counsel relied upon various paragraphs of the said judgment starting from paragraph No. 15 of the said decision.

(3.) I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jagadguru Annadanishwara Maha Swamiji Vs. V.C.Allipur and another, 2009 4 SCC 625. The Apex Court considered the judgment of this Court as well as its own judgment in the case of Bharat Bank Ltd. Vs. Employees, 1950 AIR(SC) 188. Paragraph No. 9 of the said decision reads thus: