MAHESH INDER SHARMA Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, who are Document Writers, have approached this Court by asserting that they are not covered under the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 and, therefore, are not liable to supply the information to the Tehsildar/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, as has been sought by him as per an application received under the Right to Information Act wherein not only a registered document was sought for including a register maintained by the Document Writer but also the receipt issued by him. Reliance has been placed upon the provisions of Sec. 8 (1) (e) of the Right to Information Act to contend that these are the fiduciary relationships within which ambit they would be covered and, therefore, would not be required to supply the said information. Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contends that the impugned order dtd. 12/9/2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the State Information Commission, Punjab is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.

(2.) A perusal of the order dtd. 12/9/2018 as passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab, does not indicate that the information, which is being sought from the petitioners, who are Document Writers, would be falling within the ambit of Sec. (1) (e) of the Right to Information Act as has been sought to be projected by the petitioners.

(3.) In the present case, the information, which has been sought by the Public Information Officer, O/o Tehsildar/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, is required to be supplied to the said authority for the reasons, as have been detailed in the order dtd. 12/9/2018 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab, with which reasons this Court agrees as it is a statutory duty cast upon the Document Writers which they are fulfilling. As regards the fiduciary relationship is concerned, there is no such relationship between the petitioners and the third party whose documents are being sought to be registered and entries thereof made in the registers/documents maintained by them. What is required and rightly so observed by the Chief Information Commissioner in his order dtd. 12/9/2018 is that the petitioners are bound to supply the information as available on their records to the Public Information Officer which they maintained in their statutory duties, which, thereafter, has to be processed keeping in view the provisions of Sec. 8 (1) and Sec. 9 of the Right to Information Act by the Public Information Officer. Obviously, the third party has to be given an opportunity to file a representation/response within the specified time so that the Public Information Officer comes to a conclusion as to whether the information, which is being sought, is within the ambit of Sec. 8(1) and Sec. 9 of the Right to Information Act. The duties, therefore, which are cast upon the Public Information Officer, cannot be exercised by the petitioners, who are the Document Writers. They are mandated to supply the said information to the Registrar-cum-Tehsildar, who shall, thereafter, proceed to deal with the said information as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act.