Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vivek Vishnupant Kulkarni, an advocate associated with a public trust running two schools with about 1600 students, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 5th September 2008 with the Section Officer and Information Officer (Respondent No.4) of the Urban Development Department, seeking information. The State Information Commission (Respondent No.2) passed an order on 18th August 2011 directing disclosure of the information. However, the department failed to comply with the order. The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking implementation of the Commission's order. The High Court observed that the case was a classic example of how government officers, to protect their fellow officers, tend to frustrate the basic intention of the legislature behind the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court noted that the respondent No.2 was a formal party and dispensed with notice to it. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1, 3, and 4, the court directed the implementation of the order dated 18th August 2011 passed by the State Information Commission. The court held that the officers cannot be allowed to defeat the purpose of the RTI Act and must comply with the directions of the Information Commission.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Implementation of Information Commission Order - Duty of Public Authority - Right to Information Act, 2005 - The petitioner sought information under the RTI Act, 2005 from the Urban Development Department. The State Information Commission directed disclosure on 18th August 2011, but the department failed to comply. The High Court held that government officers cannot frustrate the basic intention of the legislature behind the RTI Act and directed implementation of the order. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Information Commission's order dated 18th August 2011 directing disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 must be implemented despite resistance from government officers.
Final Decision
The High Court directed the respondents to implement the order dated 18th August 2011 passed by the State Information Commission (Respondent No.2). The petition was allowed.
Law Points
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Implementation of Information Commission order
- Frustration of legislative intent
- Public authority's duty to comply
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO. 6961 OF 2012
Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner, Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4
Vivek Vishnupant Kulkarni
The State of Maharashtra, The State Information Commission, Deputy Secretary and Appellate Authority Urban Development Department, The Section Officer and Information Officer Urban Development Department
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking implementation of an order passed by the State Information Commission under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to implement the order dated 18th August 2011 passed by the State Information Commission.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's application under the RTI Act was not complied with despite the Commission's order directing disclosure.
Previous Decisions
The State Information Commission passed an order on 18th August 2011 directing disclosure of information, but the respondents failed to comply.
Issues
Whether the State Information Commission's order under the RTI Act must be implemented by the public authority despite resistance from government officers.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the respondents failed to implement the order of the State Information Commission dated 18th August 2011.
The respondents did not contest the petition; the court noted that the case was a classic example of officers frustrating the legislative intent.
Ratio Decidendi
Government officers cannot frustrate the basic intention of the legislature behind the Right to Information Act, 2005. Orders of the Information Commission must be implemented by public authorities.
Judgment Excerpts
The case in hand is a classic example, as to how the Government officers for protecting their fellow officers tend to frustrate the basic intention of the legislature behind the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an RTI application on 5th September 2008. The State Information Commission passed an order on 18th August 2011 directing disclosure. The respondents failed to comply. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6961 of 2012 in the Bombay High Court. Notice was issued on 21st August 2013. The court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 19th December 2014, pronouncing it on 27th February 2015.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
