THE APPELLANT ABOVE NAMED SUBMITS HIS WRITTEN NOTES OF ARGUMENTS AS UNDER :-
The appellant submits his written notes of arguments in the second appeal under protest as the learned Information Commissioner (Chief Information Commissioner) has protected Public information Officer in the last hearing held against the same authority dated 04/07/2017 (appeal number CIC/RK/A/2016/001380).The learned Presiding officer overruled Delhi High Court judgment and dismissed appeal by ignoring important judgments of Supreme Court and High Court. The appellant has already issued legal notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to Chief information Commissioner (diary number 150043 of 2017 dated 20/07/2017)
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. This principle is applicable to Bombay High Court and Information commissioners of central information including chief central information commissioner except Mr. Shridhar Acharyulu.Bombay High Court has clearly ignored judgment of Supreme Court in keshavanand Bharati vs state of kerala which has defined limits of judiciary and parliament by making rules inconsistent with the parent Act (RTI Act) with knowledge that provisions of rules are inconsistent with parent Act to restrain ordinary citizens from raising their voice against corrupt judicial officers in high court and sub ordinate court.
The appellant has already narrated many aspects in his appeal and therefore it is not necessary for him to reproduce all contentions in the present written argument .The learned Presiding Officer is bound to read contents of appeal before commencement of hearing of appeal.
Public authorities, as noticed above are defined by Section 2(h) as-
“means any authority or body or institution of self – government established or constituted-
(a) by or under the Constitution of India.”
The definition of “information” under Section (f) is as follows:
““information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force..”
2(e) “Competent authority means –
(i) the Speaker in the case of the house of the people or the legislative assembly of a State or a Union Territory having such assembly and the chairman in the case of the Council of States or Legislative.
(ii) The Chief justice of India in the case of the Supreme Court.;
(iii) The Chief justice of the High Court in the case of a High Court;
As the Chief Justice is competent authority under the law and High Court is created by constitution the provisions of RTI Act are applicable to high court and to record held it including proceedings of petitions, suits, appeals and relevant judicial proceedings pending or disposed.
That section 4(1)(b)(viii) of Right To information Act 2005 reads as under:-
4(1)(b)(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;
The above mentioned clearly reveals that high court is bound to disclose committees constituted by it for making inquiry of judicial officers as high court is bound to disclose information related to all committees constituted by it.
The High Court has no authority to add alter amend the law passed by the parliament by making the rules.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has already prescribed procedure for filing complaint against High Court and Supreme Court Judges called “In House procedure”. It appears that Bombay High Court has already a committee for inquiry against the judicial officers. The learned Chief Justice has appointed such committee time to time in each disciplinary proceeding against judicial officer upon receipt of complaint against judicial officers. Therefore public information officer is bound to disclose information related to constitution of committee and designation of members of such committee and also names of high court judges.
In Addl. District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Admn. v Shri Siri Ram AIR 2000 SC 2143, the Supreme Court of India held:
“It is well recognized principle of interpretation of a statute that conferment of rule making power by an Act does not enable the rule making authority to make rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto.”
Therefore Rules 13(1)(a) of Bombay High Court RTI Rules (Revised ) 2009 are inconsistent with the provisions of law and therefore null and void.
The learned public information officer as well as learned Appellate Authority has not applied their mind while passing orders. They are set to rewrite law, even constitution by making the rules under RTI Act .This is not permissible in a country where parliament and legislative assembly of state has only authority to make law related to fundamental rights.
That section 4(1)(d) of RTI Act 2005 reads as under
4(1)(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
The authorities of High Court disposed my complaint dated 25/12/2015 and 27/04/2016 as appellant has filed these complaints these authorities were bound to inform reasons of disposal to the complainant as he is affected person .The High Court is bound to inform reasons as per section 4(1)(d) to the complainant but failed to inform him reasons for disposal of complaint.
In Shri Manish Khanna vs High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi on 10 October, 2008 Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed in para. No.27 as under:-
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC (W.P.(C) No.3114/2007) in which the Hon'ble Ravindra Bhat J, has held that the Right to Information Act being a right based enactment is akin to a welfare measure and as such should receive liberal interpretation. A definitive ruling on the application of exemption to the right to information, it will be worthwhile to re-produce what has been held by his lordship in the aforesaid case, which is as under:
"12. The Act is an effectuation of the right to freedom of speech and expression. In an increasingly knowledge based society, information and access to information holds the key to resources, benefits, and distribution of power. Information, more than any other element, is of critical importance in a participatory democracy. By one fell stroke, under the Act, the maze of procedures and official barriers that had previously impeded information, has been swept aside. The citizen and information seekers have, subject to a few exceptions, an overriding right to be given information on matters in the possession of the state and public agencies that are covered by the Act. As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the Government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while construing the provisions contained therein.
13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1) (h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information.
14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in their terms; there is some authority supporting this view (See Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta 2005 (2) SCC 201; B. R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V. Tulasamma v.Sesha Reddy 1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted."
The learned PIO has not provided copy of order passed by authority who disposed off my complaints addressed to Registrar General dated 27 April 2016 and complaint mentioned in the complaint dated 27/04/2017 . This shows that High Court has not conducted any investigation in my complaint dated 25/12/2015 . It appears that some vested interests are willing to protect corrupt practices adopted by the concern judicial against whom complaint dated 25/12/2015was preferred .It appears that person against whom complaint was preferred vide complaint dated 25/12/2015 is the daughter of present President of Pune District Consumer Forum who is retired district judge and to save daughter of retired judge pio has shown that investigation was conducted in fact there was no investigation took place.
The pio neither defined meaning of investigation nor provided any information which prima facie proves that investigation was really took place.
The information which cannot be denied to parliament and which is related corruption can be kept secret. The learned Chief information Commissioner and PIO Bombay failed to recognize this basic principle of law.
Therefore stamen of PIO in each reply is baseless, vague and decision of first appellate shows how appeals are dismissed without quoting reasons and shows pragmatic mind of first appellate authority and his willingness to protect corrupt practices of child’s of judicial officers .
Therefore appellant prays that
1) To quash and set aside order passed by first appellate authority .
2) To hold and declare section 13(1)(a) of RTI Rules framed by High Court as null and void as the same are inconsistent to the provisions of RTI Act .
3) To impose penalty for false statement made before the commission regarding disposal of complaint filed by the present appellant dated 25/12/2015 before Chief Justice Bombay High Court.
4) To direct to provide all information requested by the appellant along with permission to check file related to his complaints dated 25/12/2015,27/04/2016.
