FARIDULLAH KHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prayed for a direction for the respondents to implement the order of the appellate authority constituted under the Right of Information Act, 2005 ( RTI Act), so that the documents directed to be given by the appellate authority can be received by the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner preferred an application under Section 6 of the RTI Act (Annexure P/2). In the said application, petitioner prayed for supplying certain documents. The respondents by order dated 05.11.2012 (Annexure P/3) rejected the said application and intimated that the said documents cannot be supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred first appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. The said appeal (Annexure P/4) is decided by the appellate authority on 04.03.2013 (Annexure P/5). The appellate authority allowed the application and directed the department to provide the documents to the petitioner within 15 days. The petitioner preferred applications for implementation of the said order but appellate order, aforesaid, was not implemented. The petitioner's representation Annexure P/6 dated 07.08.2013 went in vain. This petition is filed to ensure that the documents directed to be given by first appellate authority are handed over to the petitioner. Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the action of the respondents in not implementing the appellate order is contrary to RTI Act, 2005. The said action is arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and unfair in nature.

(3.) PER Contra, Mrs. Sangeeta Pachauri, Dy. G.A. for the State by taking this Court to various paragraphs of the return submits that the direction issued by the appellate authority amounts to interference in administrative functioning of the department. It is urged that under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005 only relevant information needs to be furnished. It is contended that the department has not committed any error in not obeying order of the appellate authority and in not providing the documents to the petitioner.