Vikram Simon Vs. State Information Commissioner, U.P. State Information Commission,

Vikram Simon vs State Information Commissioner, U.P. State Information Commission, ;s.S.P., ;deputy S.P. and ;statio

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Sep 23, 2008

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/489499

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/489499
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Ashok Bhushan and ;Arun Tandon, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 23, 2008
Subject: Right to Information
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Right to Information
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vikram Simon

Respondent

State Information Commissioner, U.P. State Information Commission, ;s.S.P., ;deputy S.P. and ;statio

Legal References

Reported In: AIR2009All51; 2009(1)AWC70

Excerpt

.....time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - 8. from the facts on record it is clear that the petitioner is facing prosecution with reference to the first information report, referred to above, the information asked for by the petitioner qua the place of his arrest in the facts of the case is squarely covered by section 8(h) and, therefore, we are satisfied that there is no right of the petitioner to ask for such information under the right to information act, 2005. the contention raised in that regard by the petitioner is rejected......is concerned, we may only record that under section 8(h) of the right to information act, 2005 such information need not be disclosed as may impede tie process initiated as an f.i.r. for ready reference section 8(h) is quoted below:8. exemption from disclosure of information.- (1)notwithstanding anything contained in this act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.7. from the aforesaid section it is clear that that there is any information which may impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders need not be supplied.8. from the facts on record it is clear that the petitioner is facing prosecution with reference to the first information report, referred to above, the information asked for by the petitioner qua the place of his arrest in the facts of the case is squarely covered by section 8(h) and, therefore, we are satisfied that there is no right of the petitioner to ask for such information under the right to information act, 2005. the contention raised in that regard by the petitioner is rejected.9. so far as the payment of penalty for delayed information is concerned, we only provide that the petitioner may make an application before the appellate authority along with a certified copy of this order and we request the appellate authority to take a decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within two weeks, if not already communicated.10. writ petition is disposed of.

Full Judgment

Ashok Bhushan and Arun Tandon, JJ.

1. Petitioner before this Court has been arrested in reference to the First Information Report in the case being Case Crime No. 457 of 2007 under Section 452/506 IPC and has been confined to prison.

2. The petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information in respect of the following two questions:

a. Whether Dr. R.S. Upadhyaya has lodged an F.I.R. with the Station House Officer, Highway, Mathura against the petitioner who is a resident of 883-A, Masihaganj, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi, on 15.07.2007 or not.

b. Whether the petitioner was arrested outside the house of R.S. Upadhyaya and was sent to jail as was reported in the daily newspaper Amar Ujala dated 17.07.2007.

3. The application so made by the petitioner was not replied in time and. therefore, he fifed an Appeal before the State Information Commissioner, U.P. The Appeal was numbered as Complaint No. S-4/95/(C)/08. The Commissioner under the impugned order dated 11.06.2008 has recorded that the information asked for by the petitioner has been supplied to him as has been admitted by the applicant before the Appellate Authority.

4. However the applicant has further insisted that there was delay in supply of the information and therefore, cost should be imposed. On the aforesaid second prayer the Appellate Authority has recorded that the records shall be examined and the order shall be communicated to the petitioner within twenty days. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

5. The order dated 11.06.2008 is being questioned before us on two grounds:

(i.) The complete information specifically with reference to question No. 2 i.e. the place where the petitioner was arrested) has not been supplied.

(ii.) The information which was stated to be passed within 20 days fras not reached the petitioner till date.

6. So far as the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, we may only record that under Section 8(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 such information need not be disclosed as may impede tie process initiated as an F.I.R. For ready reference Section 8(h) is quoted below:

8. Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-

(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

7. From the aforesaid Section it is clear that that there is any information which may impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders need not be supplied.

8. From the facts on record it is clear that the petitioner is facing prosecution with reference to the First Information Report, referred to above, the information asked for by the petitioner qua the place of his arrest in the facts of the case is squarely covered by Section 8(h) and, therefore, we are satisfied that there is no right of the petitioner to ask for such information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The contention raised in that regard by the petitioner is rejected.

9. So far as the payment of penalty for delayed information is concerned, we only provide that the petitioner may make an application before the Appellate Authority along with a certified copy of this order and we request the Appellate Authority to take a decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within two weeks, if not already communicated.

10. Writ petition is disposed of.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2008 Same Parties Vikram Simon vs State Information Commissioner, U.P. State In... Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Ashok Bhushan and ;Arun Tandon, JJ.

Right to Information