|S.No.||HIGH COURT CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||LPA 24/2015 & CM No 965/2015||07 Jan, 2016||Registrar, SCI Vs Lokesh Batra
On a combined reading of section 4(1)(a) and section 2 (j), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, “right to information” under section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant.
|2||C.W.P. No. 4787 of 2011 (O&M)||02 Nov, 2012||Fruit & Merchant Union vs Chief Information Commissioner and others
On a perusal of the record of the Commission, it was noticed that the procedure followed by them in dealing with the complaints is not in the manner it should have been by any quasi-judicial authority. Though this court appreciates the process adopted by the Commission for hearing of the parties through video conferencing making use of such infrastructure and avoiding harassment to the litigants, but still the manner in which record has been maintained certainly deserves comments by this court. There is no order sheet maintained by the Commission. The power of adjudication or passing of any interim order is conferred on the Commission, but a perusal of the file does not show that after receipt of the complaint filed by respondent No. 3, any order was passed by the Commission issuing notice to the opposite party fixing any date or the adjournment thereof. The filing of application by the petitioner placing on record the order passed by the first appellate authority has not even been noticed. The order though mentions the number of complaint as CC No. 341/2011, but its complete abbreviation has not been provided considering the fact that it is the final order, which can be subjected to judicial review. The date of filing of the complaint has not been mentioned on the order, which is sine qua non. In case any quasi-judicial or judicial authority decides any application/petition/appeal etc., the date of filing and date of decision is required to be mentioned. In the present case, though apparently the respondent in the complaint before the Commission as impleaded by respondent No. 3-complainant was merely the State Public Information Officer, however, there can be cases where there are more than one complainant/appellant before the Commission and so the respondents. The complete details of all the parties is required to be mentioned in the final order, which is generally termed as “memo of parties”. It enables the next higher court to know as to who were the parties before the authority/court below. The aforesaid discrepancies in the procedure is on account of the fact that the Commission is manned by the officers, who are not judicially trained.
Not only this, even the appeal decided by the first appellate authority is not numbered. No date of filing of the same has been
mentioned. These aspects of the matter shall be taken care of even by the appellate authorities and the State Public Information Officers.
Further, in all complaints before the Public Information Officer, the appeal before the first appellate authority or any proceedings before the Commission, it should be ensured that the applicant files his proof of identity along with the application. It is for the reason that in some cases, it has come to the notice of this court that the applicants were not identifiable. It would ensure that only the genuine persons file applications.