VINUBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL (MALAVIA) V. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

SCA/1629/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Vinubhai Haribhai Patel (Malavia), the petitioner, who sought relief under the Right to Information Act against the Central Information Commission, the respondent. The petitioner had previously requested information from the CPIO, Income Tax, Surat, which was denied without a hearing. Subsequent appeals were also dismissed without sufficient hearing. The petitioner filed a Special Civil Application, which was withdrawn to file a Second Appeal. The Second Appeal was acknowledged by the respondent but remained unaddressed for an extended period, prompting the filing of the current petition. The court, after hearing the arguments, directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's request for an expedited hearing of the Second Appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727208 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Right to Information Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P S CHAMPANERI
• Assessee Lawyers: RADHESH VYAS
• Keywords: Central Information Commission; Right to Information; Second appeal; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 19(3)

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/1629/2013 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1629 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ VINUBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL (MALAVIA)....Petitioner(s) Versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR RADHESH VYAS FOR MR NM KAPADIA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PS CHAMPANERI ADVOCATE for the Respondent. ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 13/02/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/1629/2013 JUDGMENT 1. RULE. Learned Central Counsel Mr. P.S. Champaneri waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioner by way of this petition preferred under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, has prayed following relief : (A) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order directing the respondent to dispose of the Appeal No.S.A./UG/12/F8027gf4 within stipulated time after hearing the petitioner. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner demanded certain information under provisions of the Right to Information Act from the CPIO, Income Tax, Surat. That application was rejected without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner preferred Appeal against the said order and that was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.3275 of 2011 against the order of Appeal, but in view of the provisions of Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act, the petition was withdrawn with a view to file Second Appeal before the said Authority. He further submitted that the said Second Appeal No.S.A./UG/12/F8037gf4 was duly received by the respondent on 15.4.2011, but till date, no letter or any kind of response regarding hearing of the said Appeal is not received. Therefore, present petition is filed by the petitioner for issuing necessary direction to the Authority. 4. Learned Central Counsel Mr. Champaneri submitted that the petitioner has never made any attempt by way of application for early hearing the Appeal before the Authority. He further submitted that if the Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/1629/2013 JUDGMENT petitioner makes application for hearing, then the Authority will consider the same and his Appeal should be taken up for hearing as early as possible. 5. In view of the statement made by the learned Central Counsel Mr. Champaneri, the petitioner is permitted to move before the Authority by way of application for early hearing of the Appeal and the Authority is directed to consider the application for early hearing of Appeal made by the petitioner and decide and dispose of the Second Appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law, as early as possible. 6. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) YNVYAS Page 3 of 3 "