RABINDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since this Court has the benefit of recent declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Others, 2011 8 SCC 497, the High Court is saved from a detailed adjudication which was required to be made on the various submissions tendered on behalf of the petitioner. The background under which the present writ application came to be filed is that certain information was sought for by respondent no. 3 from the petitioner who happened to be the Public Information Officer Incharge and duly declared as such. There is no dispute that information had been tendered from time to time but the grievance sought to be raised in the present writ application is that the Chief Information Commissioner or the Members exceeded their jurisdiction by trying to solve the dispute or pressing for a decision or the manner in which a decision was required to be taken with regard to the interest of private respondent no. 3 in matters of grant of certain benefit in service.

(2.) After having had a look at the relevant paragraphs of the decision rendered in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education , specially paragraphs 13, 63, 65 and 67, which are reproduced hereinbelow, the Court does veer towards the fact that it was none of the business of the State Information Commission to give direction to take decision in a particular manner with regard to the relief which private respondent was looking for:--

(3.) Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned counsel representing the State Information Commission also to some extent accepts the legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and to that extent he cannot disagree with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on this aspect. He, however, has tried to justify the order of the Commissioner as also the object and purpose for which the information was sought to be achieved otherwise the act of the applicant would have failed.