PATTI ALIAS BEGARI Vs. A P HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioners is that their complaints dated 05.11.2006 along with the subsequent complaints dated 11.06.2011 and 13.06.2011 made against the 5th respondent, a judicial officer, who passed an order in CMA. Nos. 65-67/2005 while working as the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (to which proceedings they were parties), were not placed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice before the Committee of learned Judges constituting the disciplinary committee of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and seek a direction to do so, to respondents 1-4; and for taking further decision in the matter, in accordance with the relevant disciplinary rules. A common order dated 10.08.2006 was passed by the 5th respondent when he was working as Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in C.M.A. Nos. 65 of 2005, 66 of 2005 and 67 of 2005 in which the petitioners herein were parties. The petitioners allege that the said order is erroneous in fact and in law; the said order was passed by the 5th respondent by not taking into consideration certain documents filed by the petitioners; and that the said officer had taken a bribe. Several statements on the merits of the claim of the parties to the above C.M.As are also pleaded but it is not necessary to deal with the same as the present proceeding is not one where the correctness of the Judicial order of the 5th respondent is challenged.

(2.) A representation dated 05.11.2006 was made by the 1st petitioner and the father of the 2nd petitioner to the Chairman, A.P. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, Hyderabad, alleging that the 5th respondent was guilty of corruption, the said Officer had helped the petitioners' opponents in the above litigation and the petitioners need to be helped as they are scheduled castes. According to the petitioners, the said complaint/representation dated 05.11.2006 was forwarded by the said Commission vide its letter Rc. No. S3/2197/RR/2006, dated 13.12.2006 to the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court of A.P. However, no such representation was received by the Registry of the High Court.

(3.) The father of the 2nd petitioner Late Khanapuram Gandiah filed an application dated 15.11.2006 under S.6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the Act") before the Administrative Officer-cum-Asst. State Public Information Officer under the said Act seeking information as to why the 5th respondent had not considered certain documents and arguments while passing orders in the CMAs mentioned above. This was rejected on 23.11.2006. He then preferred an appeal before the Registrar General of the High Court of A.P.--cum-Appellate Authority under s. 19 (1) of the Act. This was rejected on 20.1.2007. He thereupon filed a Second Appeal before the A.P. State Information Commission which also rejected it on 20.11.2007. Challenging the same, he filed W.P. 28810/2008 in the High Court of A.P. The writ petition was dismissed on 24.4.2009 This order is reported in Khanapuram Gandiah v. The Administrative Officer, Ranga Reddy, 2009 AIR(AP) 174 holding that authorities discharging judicial functions are not covered under S. 4 of the said Act and they are not obliged to provide any information to the applicant under the provisions of the said Act in regard to the decisions taken by them, that the contention of the petitioner therein that the 5th respondent had committed judicial dishonesty by not taking into consideration certain documents filed by the petitioner is raised only with the oblique motive of leveling allegations against the Judge and that it is absolutely unjust and improper. The petitioner therein filed S.L.P. (Civil) No. 34868/2009 in the Supreme Court of India which was also dismissed on dt. 4.1.2010 This order is reported in Khanapuram Gandiah Vs. Administrative Officer, 2010 AIR(SC) 615 on the ground that a citizen cannot seek information from a Judicial Officer regarding his acts of omissions and commissions in the discharge of his duties as a Judicial Officer and that the 5th respondent was not obliged to furnish any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him. The Supreme Court also held that a judicial officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the same is not to protect malicious and corrupt judges, but to protect the public from the dangers to which the administration of justice would be exposed if the concerned judicial officers were subject to inquiry as to malice, or to litigation with those whom their decisions might offend. It held that if anything is done contrary to this, it would certainly affect the independence of the judiciary and that a judge should be free to make independent decisions.