BINOYA DUTTA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is a practicing advocate and formerly a Govt. Advocate of the State of Meghalaya, by the present petition has challenged the notification dated 21.09.2006 (Annexure-3) issued by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Law(A) Department; communication dated 20/12/2006 (Annexure-5) issued by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya-cum-Public Information Officer refusing to furnish certain documents sought for by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005; order dated 6/3/2007 (Annexure-6) passed by the Appellate Authority cum the Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Law Department under the Right to Information Act rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decision of the Public Information Officer refusing to furnish certain documents as well as the order dated 23/7/2007 (Annexure-8) passed by the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decision of the Appellate Authority in so far as the prayer for furnishing certain documents made by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may be noticed as under:

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand supporting the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), dated 23.07.2007 has submitted that the Government of Meghalaya has already supplied the note sheet as directed by the CIC in his aforesaid order, while refusing to furnish the other documents, those being the information available to the State in fiduciary relationship with the Advocate General and hence cannot be disclosed, in view of the provisions contained in Section 8(1)(e) of the Act. It has been submitted that the Advocate General of a State may require to furnish certain informations to the State relating to the functioning of the office of the Sr. Govt. Advocate as well as the conduct of the Government Advocates for smooth functioning. Such communications/information furnished by the Advocate General to the Law Department of the State or to the Chief Secretary being in fiduciary capacity the same cannot be disclosed in view of Section 8(1)(e) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the information furnished by the Advocate General was for the benefit of the State, with whom he stands in a relation implying and necessitating great confidence and trust on the one part and the high degree of good faith on the other and as such any communication between a department of the State Govt. and the Advocate General is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act.