NEERAJ KUSH Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure P -1), passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana/respondent No. 1, vide which appeal preferred by the petitioner against the letter dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P -6), passed by the First Appellate Authority -cum -Inspector General, Intelligence/respondent No. 2 stands dismissed.

(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner moved an application dated 2.7.2009 (Annexure P -2) before the State Public Information Officer/respondent No. 3, requesting therein for supply of certified copy of complaint filed by one Shri Mukesh Malhotra, the then Inspector, Criminal Investigation Department, now posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar against Shri Sukhbir Goyat, District Attorney for violation of human rights because of misbehaviour and maltreatment. This information was refused by respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure P -3) on the ground that the Criminal Investigation Department (in short 'CID') has been exempted from providing information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short 'RTI Act') as per the Notification dated 29.12.2005, issued by the State of Haryana under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act and information sought by the petitioner does not fall within the exception to the said Notification, which mandate supply of information relating to corruption and human rights violation. The information sought by the petitioner did not fall within the purview of human rights violation or corruption and, thus, the information cannot be supplied. Against this order, petitioner preferred first appeal before the Authority under the RTI Act, i.e. Inspector General, Intelligence/respondent No. 2, which on the same grounds, rejected the claim of the petitioner, vide letter dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P -6) and the order was further challenged by the petitioner before the Second Appellate Authority, i.e. State Information Commission, Haryana/respondent No. 3, under the RTI Act. The same has also been rejected, vide order dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure P -1) on the ground that the petitioner is a third party and has no locus standi in the matter and the complaint also does not indicate any violation of human rights. As the matter involves two officers of the Government departments and any complaint made by one against the other is a matter to be settled by the two concerned departments. The complainant is a senior functionary of the police department and is capable of looking after his own interest and, therefore, the State Information Commission finds no justification for providing the copy of the complaint to the petitioner. This, counsel for the petitioner contends is against the spirit of the provisions as contained under Section 8 Clause (j) of the RTI Act. Further, the provisions as contained under Section 11 of the RTI Act, have not been followed by the Authorities below. His contention is that the exemption granted under Clause (4) of Section 24 of the RTI Act is limited to the information relating to intelligence and security organizations and only this information can be denied and all other information should be supplied except as exempted under the RTI Act. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 12904 of 2009 First Appellate Authority and another Versus Chief Information Commissioner and another, decided on 27.1.2011 (Annexure P -10) to contend that the information as sought for by the petitioner needs to be supplied to him. His further submission is that the information, which has been sought by the petitioner, is covered by the definition of human rights as provided under Clause (d) of Section 2(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and is supported by the International Covenants on civil and political rights. Reference has also been made to the Article 21 of the Constitution of India where the definition of word 'life and personal liberty' has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in support of which reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Re: Noise Pollution AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3136 and Chairman, Railway Board Versus Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988. He on this basis contends that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the application dated 2.7.2009 (Annexure -P -2), preferred by the petitioner, be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.