LAWS(P&H)-2012-10-118

VED PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On October 30, 2012
VED PARKASH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this court impugning the order dated 6.3.2012, passed by Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana (for short, 'the Commission'), whereby the appeal filed by them was dismissed referring to Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act') holding that under the Act, right to information is provided only to a citizen and not to a group of citizens, hence, any application/appeal on their behalf under the Act is not maintainable.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein filed application seeking certain information from Public Information Officer, PWD, B&R, Jind Circle and deposited the requisite fee. As some sketchy and incomplete information was provided by the Public Information Officer, the petitioners preferred appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated nil, endorsement dated 7.12.2011, directed for supply of the information and also warned the Public Information Officer to be careful in future. As the information was still not provided, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Commission, which was dismissed by holding that the petitioners have no right to invoke the provisions of the Act in terms of Section 3 thereof, as only a citizen individually has the right to seek information and not a group of citizens.

(3.) Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners, who are three in number, are citizens of India. The application was filed by them to avoid multiplicity of litigation as the information sought by them was common. It could be sought even by each one of them individually. It is not that if three persons had approached the authority under the Act jointly, their individual status would change. It will not become a legal entity as such different from their individual status which may not be termed as citizens of India, such as society or company. He further submitted that before taking up the appeal filed by the petitioners, the Commission did not even grant opportunity of hearing to them.