Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors

Khanapuram Gandaiah ... Petitioner

Vs.

Administrative Officer & Ors. ... Respondents

ORDER

1. This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment and

order dated 24.4.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.28810 of 2008 by the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh by which the writ petition against the order of

dismissal of the petitioner's application and successive appeals under the

Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called the "RTI Act") has been

dismissed. In the said petition, the direction was sought by the Petitioner to

the Respondent No.1 to provide information as asked by him vide his

application dated 15.11.2006 from the Respondent No.4 - a Judicial Officer

as for what reasons, the Respondent No.4 had decided his Miscellaneous

Appeal dishonestly.

2

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are, that the

petitioner claimed to be in exclusive possession of the land in respect of

which civil suit No.854 of 2002 was filed before Additional Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District praying for perpetual injunction by Dr. Mallikarjina

Rao against the petitioner and another, from entering into the suit land.

Application filed for interim relief in the said suit stood dismissed. Being

aggrieved, the plaintiff therein preferred CMA No.185 of 2002 and the same

was also dismissed. Two other suits were filed in respect of the same

property impleading the Petitioner also as the defendant. In one of the suits

i.e. O.S. No.875 of 2003, the Trial Court granted temporary injunction

against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, Petitioner preferred the CMA No.67

of 2005, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court - Respondent No.4

vide order dated 10.8.2006.

3. Petitioner filed an application dated 15.11.2006 under Section 6 of the

RTI Act before the Administrative Officer-cum-Assistant State Public

Information Officer (respondent no.1) seeking information to the queries

mentioned therein. The said application was rejected vide order dated

23.11.2006 and an appeal against the said order was also dismissed vide

order dated 20.1.2007. Second Appeal against the said order was also 3

dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission vide order

dated 20.11.2007. The petitioner challenged the said order before the High

Court, seeking a direction to the Respondent No.1 to furnish the information

as under what circumstances the Respondent No.4 had passed the Judicial

Order dismissing the appeal against the interim relief granted by the Trial

Court. The Respondent No.4 had been impleaded as respondent by name.

The Writ Petition had been dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that

the information sought by the petitioner cannot be asked for under the RTI

Act. Thus, the application was not maintainable. More so, the judicial

officers are protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850

(hereinafter called the "Act 1850"). Hence, this petition.

4. Mr. V. Kanagaraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

has submitted that right to information is a fundamental right of every

citizen. The RTI Act does not provide for any special protection to the

Judges, thus petitioner has a right to know the reasons as to how the

Respondent No. 4 has decided his appeal in a particular manner. Therefore,

the application filed by the petitioner was maintainable. Rejection of the

application by the Respondent No. 1 and Appellate authorities rendered the

petitioner remediless. Petitioner vide application dated 15.11.2006 had asked 4

as under what circumstances the Respondent No.4 ignored the written

arguments and additional written arguments, as the ignorance of the same

tantamount to judicial dishonesty, the Respondent No.4 omitted to examine

the fabricated documents filed by the plaintiff; and for what reason the

respondent no.4 omitted to examine the documents filed by the petitioner.

Similar information had been sought on other points.

5. At the outset, it must be noted that the petitioner has not challenged

the order passed by the Respondent No. 4. Instead, he had filed the

application under Section 6 of the RTI Act to know why and for what

reasons Respondent No. 4 had come to a particular conclusion which was

against the petitioner. The nature of the questions posed in the application

was to the effect why and for what reason Respondent No. 4 omitted to

examine certain documents and why he came to such a conclusion.

Altogether, the petitioner had sought answers for about ten questions raised

in his application and most of the questions were to the effect as to why

Respondent No. 4 had ignored certain documents and why he had not taken

note of certain arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel. 5

6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which

provides:

"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."

This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can

get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the

public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is

entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he

cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars,

orders, etc. have been passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial

decisions. A judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him. If

any party feels aggrieved by the order/judgment passed by a judge, the

remedy available to such a party is either to challenge the same by way of

appeal or by revision or any other legally permissible mode. No litigant can

be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons the judge had

come to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge is not bound to explain

later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion. 6

7. Moreover, in the instant case, the petitioner submitted his application

under Section 6 of the RTI Act before the Administrative Officer-cum-

Assistant State Public Information Officer seeking information in respect of

the questions raised in his application. However, the Public Information

Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any

information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI

Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be

accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in

force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have

been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this

information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to

why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him. A

judge cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have been

enumerated in the judgment or order. The application filed by the petitioner

before the public authority is per se illegal and unwarranted. A judicial

officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the same is not to protect

malicious or corrupt judges, but to protect the public from the dangers to

which the administration of justice would be exposed if the concerned

judicial officers were subject to inquiry as to malice, or to litigation with

those whom their decisions might offend. If anything is done contrary to 7

this, it would certainly affect the independence of the judiciary. A judge

should be free to make independent decisions.

8. As the petitioner has misused the provisions of the RTI Act, the High

Court had rightly dismissed the writ petition.

9. In view of the above, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed

accordingly.

...............................CJI.

(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

..................................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) New Delhi, January 4, 2010