THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI V. ANDHRA PRADESH INFORMATION COMMISSION

WP/40121/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the Andhra Pradesh Information Commission's order, which directed the High Court to provide certain judicial records to a private individual under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner contested the commission's order, arguing it was contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner vs. High Court of Gujarat. The Supreme Court had previously held that information on the judicial side, which includes personal information of the parties and details of cases, should be accessed through certified copies rather than RTI requests, to avoid unnecessary procedural complications and resource wastage.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 735715 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Chief Information Commissioner vs. High Court of Gujarat and another
• Laws Referred To: High Court Act, 2005, Right to Information Act, 2005, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Article 14 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SATHEESH EERLA
• Assessee Lawyers: N KUMAR
• Keywords: Certified copies; Natural Justice; RTI Act; Writ of Mandamus; Information Commission; Judicial Side
• Section: 11; 19(3); 8(1)(j)

Judgement Text

"WRIT PETITION NO: 40121 OF 2022 Between: 1. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati. at Amaravati, High Court Act, 2005, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District- 522237. ...Petitioners AND Rice Mill, Addanki, Bapatla District-523201 ...Respondents THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE; AND M HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Buildings, Nelapadu, Amaravati, Rep. by its Registrar General. 2. The Registrar (Judicial) and State Public Information Officer, Under Right to Information Act, 2005, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District-522237. 3. The Registrar (General) and Appellate Authority.'Under Right to Information Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particular In the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus' to declare the proceedings/order in Case NO.8421/SIC-KJR/2022 dated 12.10.2022 issued by the I* Respondent Commission directing the 2\"'* Petitioner to furnish the Writ Petition Number relating to the C.A.No.80/2018 in O.A.No. 3440 of 2017 on the file 'of A.P. Administrative Tribunal within 3 weeks frorn the date of receipt of the copy of order to the 2\"^ Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, uhjustifiable, in violation of principles of natural justice, lacking application of mind, in violation of Provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, and in violation of Article .14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings/order In Case NO.8421/SIC-KJR/2022 dated 12.10.2022 issued by the 1** Respondent Commission. 1. Andhra Pradesh Iriformation Commission, 1®‘ Floor, MGM Capital, Abutting NH-16 Service Road, Chinna Kakani, Near Little Village Restaurant, Near NRI Hospital 'Y' Junction, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh- 522 508, Rep. by its State Information Commissioner. 2. A. Srinivasa Rao, Occ. Employee of Forest Department, R/o Near Lingaiah ☆ lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N.ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: The Court made the following: order L Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of proceedings/order in Case No.8421/SIC-KJR/2022 dated 12.10.2022 issued by the 1®‘ Respondent Commission. a • Y IN THE HIGH COURT OP ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. MALLEKARJUNA RAO W.P.No.40181 of S02S ...Petitioners Versus ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar Goimsel for respondent No. 1 Mr. Eerla Satheesh Kumar Counsel for respondent No.2 Dt.: 10.8025 RAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ PER The present petition has been filed inter alia by the High 1. Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Registrar (Judicial)-cum-State HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Nelapadu, Amaravati, Rep. by its Registrar General & 2 others. Andhra Pradesh Information Commission, 1st Floor, MGM Capital, Abutting NH-16 Service Road, . Chinna Kakani, Near Little Village Restaurant, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522 508, Rep. by its State Information Commissioner & another. 2 Public Information Officer, under the Eight to Information Act, S005 questioning the order, dated 12,10.2022, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Information Commission whereby directions have been issued to the State Public Information Officer, Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to furnish the ' relevant information to respondent No.2 herein. It appears from the record that an application was filed by 2. respondent No.2, with the State Public Information Officer cum Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking the following: Copies of the adjournments in O.A.No.344O of 2017 and i) C.A.No.80 of 2018 on the file of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The address and designation of the appellate authority. ii) Insofar as the address and designation of the appellate 3. authority is concerned, the same was communicated to the applicaht/respondent No.2 herein, however, the prayer of the applicant with regard to copies of the adjournments in O.A.No.3440 of 2017, the applicant/respondent No.2 was informed that the prayer cannot be entertained and that he should file an application «===»=- ■ HCJ&TMR, J W.P.No.40121 of 2022 ‘J 3 for certified copies of the said document by paying the appropriate fee. before the Appellate Authority-cum-Registrar (General) of the High dated 10.03.2022 by placing reliance upon the Apex Court Judgment rendered in Chief Information Commissioner vs. High Court of Gujarat and anotheri. Authority the respondent No.2 preferred a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005! before the State Information Commission/respondent No.l, which was allowed by virtue of order dated 12.10.2022. 6. What was observed and ordered by the State Information Commission is reproduced hereunder: ‘ 2020 (4) see 702 Court of Andhra Pradesh, who dismissed the appeal by virtue of order dated 04.05.2022, upholding the order passed by the SPIO HCJ&TMRJ W.P.No.40121of2022 // '\"Smt. K. KamaJa, Advocate is present before this Commission on behalf ofMr. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, Advocate who is appearing for State Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority. 4. Against the said communication, an appeal was preferred 5. Aggrieved of the order and Appeal passed by the Appellate 4 7. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the State Information Commission, the present writ petition has been filed primarily on the ground that the order is contrary to the ratio and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Chief Information Commissioner vs. High Court of Gujarat and another (supra). i' 8. What was held by the Apex Court in paragraphs 31, 39, 40 and 41 of the judgment (supra) is reproduced hereunder: I She has submitted that the State Public Information Officer has passed order dated 10-03-8088 by stating that the Appellant is informed that his application in respect of pending/Snal disposal of oases before High Court of AP, correspondence with the parties and third parties cannot be entertained and the Appellant can file an application for certified copies by paying appropriate fee. She also submitted that the First Appellate Authority has also not interfered with the order passed by the SPIO. HCJ&TMRJ W.P.No.40121 of 2022 22ie State Public Information Ofhcer has to direct the concerned to verify the list of pending oases of A.P. Administrative Tribunal which were transferred to A.P. High Court and find out Writ Petition number to C.A.No.80/8018in O.A.No.3440of8017. T i I ! In view of the above, the State Public Information Officer is directed to furnish the Writ Petition Number to the C.A.No.80/8018 in O.A.No.3440 of 8017 on the Sle of A.P. Administrative Tribunal on free of cost within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the order and submit compliance report to this Commission through Registered Post and through Email to [e-mail] within 5 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. ” fl 5 i 1 HCJ&TMR,I W.P.No.40121of2022 40. Yet another contention advanced is that the information held by the High Court may be furnished to the applicant by following I 39. The information held by the High Court on the judicial side is the personal information of the parties to the litigation or information furnished by the Government in relation to a particular case. There may be information held by the High Court relating to the canes which have been obtained from the various tribunals in exercise of the supervisory Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 887 of the Constitution of India. For instance, the matters arising out of the orders by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and other tribunals over which the High Court exercises the supervisory jurisdiction. The orders/Judgments passed by the High Court, though are the documents which are oohoemed with the rights and liabilities of the parties to the litigation. Under Section 8(l)(j) of the RTI Act, the Central Public Information Officer or the appellate authority may order disclosure of personal information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies disclosure. Insofar as the High Court Bules are concerned, if the information or certified copies of the documenbs/record of proceedings/ orders on the Judicial side of the Court is required, all that the third party is required to do is to ffle an applioation/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking such information. On being satisfed about the reasons for requirement of the certifed oopy/disolosure of information, the Court or the officer concerned would order for grant of certifed copies. As discussed earlier, Order 13 Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules also stipulate the same procedure insofar as the third party seeking certified copy of the doouments/reoords. “31. We fully endorse the above views of the Delhi High Court. When the High Court Rules provide for a mechanism that the information/certifed copies can be obtained by filing an apphcation/affdavit, the provisions of the RTI Act are not to be resorted to. 6 1 9. Prom a reading of the order impugned passed by the State Information Commission, it can be seen that even when the First Appellate Authority had in its order made a specific mention to the Judgment of the Apex Court (supra), it was neither mentioned by ■■ r I I the procedure under Section 11 oftheRTIAct. Section 11 of the Act deals with the third-party information. As per Section 11 of the Act, if the requisite information or record or part thereof has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, then the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case maybe, within fve days of receipt of the request give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record or part thereof and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether such information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about the disclosure of the information. 41. We do not find any merit in the above submission and that such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the information/ certified copies of the documents. When there is an effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and staking the reasons for which the certified copies are required, we do not find any Justification for Invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources which the Preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid. ” HCJ&TMR, J W.P.No.40121 of 2022 7 the State Information Commission much less distinguished or dealt with, in any manner in the order impugned. Considering the fact that law on this subject was clear and had also been brought to the notice of the State Information Commission, the Commissioner ought to have followed the same in letter and spirit, instead of imsustainable is accordingly set aside. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To, 3. ■■ ! i ion' 6. 7. HCJ&TMR, I W.P.No.40121 of 2022 SD/- S. SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR y^SEC^(ji:S»iWnCER 1. The Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pr^esh At Amaravati, at Amaravati, High Court Buildings, Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Registrar (Judicial) and State Public Information Officer, Under Right to Information Act, 2005, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District-522237. The Registrar (General) and Appellate Authority, Under Right to Information Act, 2005, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District- 522237. 4. The State information Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Information Commission, 1® Floor, MGM Capital, Abutting NH-16 Service Road, Chinna Kakani, Near Little Village Restaurant, Near NRI Hospital 'Y' Junction, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh- 522 508,. 5. A. Srinivasa Rao, Occ. Employee of Forest Department, R/o Near Lingaiah Rice Mill, Addanki, Bapatla District-523201 One CC to Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Satheesh Kumar Eerla, SC for APIC [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies RAM ■ passing the order impugned. The order impugned being HIGH COURT DATED:12/10/2023 ORDER WP.No;40121 of 2022 i i ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS / f I 2tOCT2B3 . Current Section ^^»ggSeATCHg^^ "