Ved Parkash & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Judgment

1. The petitioners have approached this court impugning the order dated 6.3.2012, passed by Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana (for short, 'the Commission'), whereby the appeal filed by them was dismissed referring to Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act') holding that under the Act, right to information is provided only to a citizen and not to a group of citizens, hence, any application/appeal on their behalf under the Act is not maintainable.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein filed application seeking certain information from Public Information Officer, PWD, B&R, Jind Circle and deposited the requisite fee. As some sketchy and incomplete information was provided by the

Public Information Officer, the petitioners preferred appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated nil, endorsement dated 7.12.2011, directed for supply of the information and also warned the Public Information Officer to be careful in future. As the information was still not C.W.P. No. 10981 of 2012 [2] provided, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Commission, which was dismissed by holding that the petitioners have no right to invoke the provisions of the Act in terms of Section 3 thereof, as only a citizen individually has the right to seek information and not a group of citizens.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners, who are three in number, are citizens of India. The application was filed by them to avoid multiplicity of litigation as the information sought by them was common. It could be sought even by each one of them individually. It is not that if three persons had approached the authority under the Act jointly, their individual status would change. It will not become a legal entity as such different from their individual status which may not be termed as citizens of India, such as society or company. He further submitted that before taking up the appeal filed by the petitioners, the Commission did not even grant opportunity of hearing to them.

4. Learned counsel for the State though tried to make effort to defend the order but could not successfully plead that if three individuals file a petition jointly, the information cannot be provided holding their application to be not maintainable. As far as merits of the controversy are concerned, learned counsel submitted that the entire information, as sought by the petitioners, has already been supplied. Copies of the Rules, as have been sought, will also be supplied and in fact, the grouse of the petitioners does not subsist and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. book.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper Though considering the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition could have been disposed of at this stage as the requisite information has been supplied to the petitioners, however, still considering the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by the Commission totally on a non-sustainable ground regarding its maintainability, it may result in passing of such like illegal orders in future, this court would like to deal with the issue. In addition thereto, another issue required to be dealt with is regarding grant of opportunity of hearing to an appellant. C.W.P. No. 10981 of 2012 [3]

7. Part II of the Constitution of India deals with the issue of citizenship. Article 5 provides for citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution. Article 6 provides for rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan. Article 7 provides for rights of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan. Article 8 provides for right of citizenship of certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India. Article 11 provides for power of Parliament to make provision with regard to acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating therein.

8. The Citizenship Act, 1955 deals with the issue of citizenship. It provides for citizenship by birth, by descent, by registration, by naturalisation, by incorporation of territory etc. Inter-alia Section 3 thereof provides that every person born in India (a) on or after 26.1.1950 but before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986 and (b) on or after such commencement and either of whose parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth, shall be a citizen of India by birth.

9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners, who had filed application before the authority under the Act, were born in India after commencement of the Constitution. They had filed a joint application seeking certain information. The question is as to whether their application/appeal could be rejected on the ground that they being group of individuals cannot be termed as citizens ? Three individuals, who had filed the application before the Public Information Officer or the appeal before the Commission, have not constituted any separate legal entity, as a consequence of which they have lost their individual status. It has not become a legal entity in itself, as may be in case of constitution of a company, which has separate legal entity. It was held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in N. Khadervali Saheb (Dead) by LRs and another v. N. Gudu Sahib (Dead) and others, (2003) 3 SCC 229 that even a partnership firm does not have an independent entity, though in that case some individuals by signing a document termed as partnership deed join together to carry on some business or other activity giving such an entity a different name. Name of the firm is only a compendious name given to the C.W.P. No. 10981 of 2012 [4] partnership and the partners are the real owners of entire property of the partnership. Relevant paragraph thereof is extracted below: “......A partnership firm is not an independent legal entity, the partners are the real owners of the assets of the partnership firm. Actually, the firm name is only a compendious name given to the partnership for the sake of convenience. The assets of the partnership belong to and are owned by the partners of the firm. So long as partnership continues each partner is interested in all the assets of the partnership firm as each partner is owner of the assets to the extent of his share in the partnership. On dissolution of the partnership firm, accounts are settled amongst the partners and the assets of the partnership are distributed amongst the partners as per their respective shares in the partnership firm. Thus, on dissolution of a partnership firm, the allotment of assets to individual partners is not a case of transfer of any assets of the firm. The assets which herein before belonged to each partner, will after dissolution of the firm stand allotted to the partners individually.”

10. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 clearly provides that in all Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. In the present case, it cannot be denied that the appellants before the Commission individually being citizens of India were entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act for seeking information. Merely because more than one citizen had sought information by filing a joint application when their cause of action is same, it cannot be rejected holding that the same was filed by group of persons. The ultimate object is to avoid multiplicity. In case more than one individual can file separate application for same relief, they can always file a joint application.

11. To avoid passing of the orders of the kind in question which may result in creation of unnecessary litigation, Hon'ble the Supreme Court C.W.P. No. 10981 of 2012 [5] had made certain observations regarding working of the Commissions and issued directions in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 210 of 2012-- Namit Sharma v. Union of India, decided on 13.9.2012. The relevant parts thereof are extracted below: “99. ....... This discussion safely leads us to conclude that the functions of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners may be better performed by a legally qualified and trained mind possessing the requisite experience. The same should also be applied to the designation of the first appellate authority, i.e., the senior officers to be designated at the Centre and State levels. However, in view of language of Section 5, it may not be necessary to apply this principle to the designation of Public Information Officer.

100. Moreover, as already noticed, the Information Commission, is performing quasi-judicial functions and essence of its adjudicatory powers is akin to the Court system. It also possesses the essential trappings of a Court and discharges the functions which have immense impact on the rights/obligations of the parties. Thus, it must be termed as a judicial Tribunal which requires to be manned by a person of judicial mind, expertise and experience in that field......... xx xx xx xx

103. The above detailed analysis leads to an ad libitum conclusion that under the provisions and scheme of the Act of 2005, the persons eligible for appointment should be of public eminence, with knowledge and experience in the specified fields and should preferably have a judicial background. They should possess judicial acumen and experience to fairly and effectively deal with the intricate questions of law that would come up for determination before the Commission, in its day-to-day working. The C.W.P. No. 10981 of 2012 [6] Commission satisfies abecedarians of a judicial tribunal which has the trappings of a court. It will serve the ends of justice better, if the Information Commission was manned by persons of legal expertise and with adequate experience in the field of adjudication. We may further clarify that such judicial members could work individually or in Benches of two, one being a judicial member while the other being a qualified person from the specified fields to be called an expert member. Thus, in order to satisfy the test of constitutionality, we will have to read into Section 12(5) of the Act that the expression ‘knowledge and experience’ includes basic degree in that field and experience gained thereafter and secondly that legally qualified, trained and experienced persons would better administer justice to the people, particularly when they are expected to undertake an adjudicatory process which involves critical legal questions and niceties of law. Such appreciation and application of legal principles is a sine qua non to the determinative functioning of the Commission as it can tilt the balance of justice either way. Malcolm Gladwell said, “the key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding. We are swimming in the former. We are lacking in the latter”. The requirement of a judicial mind for manning the judicial tribunal is a well accepted discipline in all the major international jurisdictions with hardly with any exceptions......” [Emphasis supplied]

12. Accordingly, the order passed by the Commission rejecting the appeal holding the same to be not maintainable cannot be sustained and is set aside. However, the matter need not be remanded back for the reason that effective relief has already been granted to the petitioners and the respondents have undertaken to supply them copy of the rules and the petitioners are not entitled to any further information.

13. The grievance raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 10981 of 2012 [7] the present case is also that before deciding the appeal, the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing by the Commission. It cannot be disputed that no one can be condemned unheard. In case, the petitioners had filed appeal, minimum that was required was intimation of date of hearing to them so as to enable them to appear before the Commission and present their case. Reference can be made to Sayeedur Rehman v. State of Bihar,