Writ - Yoga Rangatia
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare purchases condoms in the range of 1000 million pieces every year costing about Rs 50 to Rs 70 crores for free distribution. There were allegations that the ministry officials had colluded with condom manufactures and formed a cartel to sell the condoms at a higher price to the Government. The Ministry approached respondent no 3 (Tariff Commission) to enquire into these allegations. Respondent no 3 prepared a report by the name of “Realistic price of condoms” and submitted to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The petitioner is a journalist with the national daily “The Pioneer”. The petitioner, with a view to bring the facts out to public domain for larger public interest, requested the respondent no. 2 to provide her a copy of report filed by the respondent no 3 with Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, by filing an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as RTI Act). However, respondent no 1 (Central Information Commission) and respondent no 2 (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) denied disclosure of report stating that its disclosure would affect the commercial confidence of condom manufacturers and would also affect their competitive position.
The petitioner by way of filing the present Writ Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India prays this Hon’ble Court for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari and that of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction against the respondents herein, thereby directing the respondents to give the report sought by the petitioner vide her application dated 02.01.2006 filed under Right To Information Act 2005.
The Petitioner is left with no other option but to approach this Hon’ble Court since neither any information was given by the respondent no 2 nor did respondent no. 1 direct respondent no. 2 to give information or award any penalty vide its impugned order dated 28.08.2006. That it is humbly submitted that the actions/inactions on the part of the respondents are in utter violation of Right to Information Act, 2005.
02.01.2006 : The petitioner tried to file an application under RTI Act, 2005 with respondent no 2 to provide a copy of report of respondent no 3 submitted to Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on condom pricing. However, respondent no 2 refused to accept the application stating that the petitioner should file the application with respondent no 3 as it was their report. When the petitioner approached respondent no 3, it, in turn directed the petitioner to file the application before the respondent no 2 stating that Respondent no. 2 were their clients and only they could give a copy. In effect, both respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 refused to accept the application under RTI Act from the petitioner.
10.01.2006 : Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a complaint through e-mail to respondent no 1.
However, the petitioner has not received any response from respondent no 1 on this complaint so far.
07.02.2006 : Petitioner received an e-mail from respondent no 2 refusing to provide copy of the report to the petitioner stating that the requisite information is covered under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act. Respondent no 2 further informed the petitioner that she could appeal to respondent no 1 as the copy of report had been denied after the approval of Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
21.02.2006 : Aggrieved by the denial of information by respondent no 2, the petitioner appealed before respondent no 1.
09.05.2006 : Petitioner did not receive any response from respondent no 1 on her appeal also. Aggrieved, she wrote an e-mail to respondent no 1 informing that she had neither received any acknowledgement nor information from the respondent no 1 about when her appeal would be listed for hearing. The respondent no 1 replied on the same day that acknowledgement should normally go immediately on receipt.
10.05.2006 : Respondent no 1 informed the petitioner that her complaint had been registered as CIC/PB/C/2006/00043.
25.05.2006 : The registry of respondent no 1 informed the petitioner on phone that they had misplaced the file of the petitioner and requested her to file another copy of the same.
15.06.2006 : The petitioner filed her appeal again vide an e—mail to the respondent no 1.
22.06.2006 : The Complaint of the petitioner was again closed by respondent no 1 on the grounds that the appeal was not according to the format prescribed under the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005. The respondent no 1 asked the petitioner to send a formal Complaint again.
28.07.2006 : Letter from respondent no 2 informing respondent no 1 that the respondent no 3 was of the view that if the contents of the report were shared with the third party, it may adversely affect the commercial interest of the condom manufacturing units which had supplied the information to the Tariff Commission and that the information should not be supplied under section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act. Respondent no 2, in view of the respondent no 3’s view, did not disclose the report to the petitioner.
07.08.2006 : Respondent no 1 sent a letter to petitioner asking her to file rejoinder within 5 days to the comments received from the respondent no 2.
The petitioner immediately thereafter, vide her e-mail filed a rejoinder wherein she clearly stated that the information was required for a news paper report in larger public interest and as such could not have harmed the commercial interest of any party.
28.08.2006 : Impugned order was passed by respondent no 1, in absence, knowledge and without giving hearing to the petitioner, upholding the decision of respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 that the information is barred under section 8 (1) (d) and section 11(1) of the RTI Act.
HENCE THIS WRIT PETITION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 AND ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
AND
IN THE MATTER UNDER SECTIONS 6, 7, 8, 11 AND 18 OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
AND
IN THE MATTER OF QUASHING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.08.2006 OF THE RESPONDENT NO 1
AND
IN THE MATTER SEEKING REPORT PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT NO 3 FOR RESPONDENT NO 2 ON THE REALISTIC COST OF CONDOMS FOR A NEWS PAPER REPORT IN LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST,
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Yoga Rangatia,
Principal Correspondent, The Pioneer,
Link House 3, Bahadur Shah Zafar marg,
New Delhi -110 002. … Petitioner
Versus
1.Central Information Commissioner
4th & 5th Floor, Block No. IV,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi 110067
2. Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
SSM Division,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi 110001
3. Tariff Commission,
7th Floor, (A Wing),
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
Khan Market,
New Delhi - 110003
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and
The other Companion Judges of
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH.
1. This is a petition preferred by the petitioner herein under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of and/or seeking appropriate order(s) in the nature of Certiorari and that of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) for issuance of order(s), direction(s) to the respondent(s) herein directing them to provide the information(s) sought by the petitioner herein vide her application dated 02.01.2006 under Right To Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and set aside the order dated 28.08.2006 passed by respondent no 1.
2. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare purchases condoms in the range of 1000 million pieces every year costing about Rs 50 to Rs 70 crores for free distribution. There were allegations that the ministry officials had colluded with condom manufactures and formed a cartel to sell the condoms at a higher price to the Government. The Ministry approached the respondent no 3 to enquire into these allegations. The respondent no 3 prepared a report by the name of “Realistic price of condoms” and submitted it with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
3. The petitioner is a journalist with the national daily The Pioneer and wanted to bring out in public the expenditure made by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on contraceptives. That the petitioner keeping in view the larger public interest involved as to the expenditure made by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on contraceptives, she by filing an application under RTI Act, requested the respondent no. 2 to provide her a copy of report filed by the respondent no 3 with Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
4. The respondent 1 is Central Information Commissioner (CIC), a statutory body constituted under the provision of section 12 of the RTI Act. Respondent no 1 is responsible for, apart from hearing appeals from the order passed by the first appellate authority of the Public Information Officer, taking cognizance of complaints filed by persons who have been refused access to any information(s) requested or who have not been given response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under the RTI Act, 2005. The CIC is also vested with the same power as that of the civil court while trying suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Respondent no 2 and 3 are public authority for the purposes of the RTI Act.
5. The facts briefly stated leading to the present case are as under:
(i) On 02.01.2006 the petitioner tried to file an application under the RTI Act, 2005, before respondent no 2, asking for a copy of report of respondent no 3 submitted to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on condom pricing. A copy of the application of the petitioner dated 02.01.2006 is annexed herewith as Annexure I.
(ii) The petitioner’s application was not accepted by respondent no 2 and the petitioner was directed by respondent no 2 to file the application before respondent no 3 as it was their report. When the petitioner approached respondent no 3, it, in turn directed the petitioner to file the application before the respondent no 2 since they were the clients and only they could give a copy. The petitioner, frustrated by the attitude of the respondent no 2 and 3, on 10.01.2006, filed a Complaint before respondent no 1 through e-mail. A copy of the Complaint of the petitioner dated 10.01.2006 is annexed herewith as Annexure II.
(iii) The petitioner never received any response from respondent no 1 on her complaint dated 10.1.2006.
(iv) That on 07.02.2006, vide e-mail, respondent no 2, in consultation with the respondent no 3, replied to the petitioner denying her a copy of the report stating that the requisite information is covered under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act. Respondent no 2 further informed the petitioner that she could appeal to the respondent no 1 as the copy of report has been denied after the approval of Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. A copy of the e-mail dated 07.02.2006 of respondent no 2 to the petitioner is annexed herewith as Annexure III.
(v) The petitioner did not receive any acknowledgement or any other response from respondent no 1 on her Complaint dated 10.1.2006. However, aggrieved by the arbitrary decision of respondent no 2, she filed another appeal dated 22.02.2006 before respondent no 1 submitting that the reasons given by respondent no 2 for denying information were unjustified and that the third party was also a public sector enterprise as thus bound by RTI Act. A copy of this appeal dated 22.02.2006 is annexed herewith as Annexure IV.
(vi) This appeal was also not responded to by respondent no 1. On non receipt of any acknowledgement or notice of hearing from respondent no 1, the petitioner wrote another e-mail to respondent no 1 on 09.05.2006 informing that she had neither received any acknowledgement nor information from the respondent no 1 about when her appeal would come up for hearing. Respondent no 1 replied on the same day that acknowledgement should normally go immediately on receipt. A copy of this e-mail dated 09.05.2006 is annexed herewith as Annexure V.
(vii) That the petitioner, again did not receive any response from respondent no 1 until 25.05.2006, when to her utter shock, she was informed on phone that the registry of respondent no 1 had misplaced her file and that she should send it again. The petitioner sent another copy of her Appeal by e-mail on 15.06.2006 to the respondent no 1.
(viii) That, after a lapse of about 5 months, the appeal of the petitioner was again closed by respondent no 1 through letter dated 28.06.2006 stating that it was not according to the format prescribed under the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005. The respondent no 1 asked the petitioner to send a formal Complaint again. The said letter is annexed as Annexure VI.
(ix) That the petitioner again, immediately, filed a formal Appeal before the respondent no 1 on 14.07.2006.
(x) That vide notice dated 07.08.2006, respondent no 1 forwarded comments received from respondent no 2 to the petitioner requiring the petitioner to file a rejoinder within 5 days. A copy of this notice dated 07.08.2006 is annexed herewith as Annexure VII.
(xi) In its comments dated 28.07.2006, respondent no 2 had stated that the respondent no 3 was of the view that if the contents of the report were shared with the third party, it may adversely affect the commercial interests of the condom manufacturing units which had supplied the information to respondent no 3 upon understanding that the information would be kept confidential and that the information should not be supplied under section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act and thus respondent no 2 did not disclose the report to the petitioner. A copy of this letter dated 28.07.2006 is annexed herewith as Annexure VIII.
(xii) That the petitioner immediately thereafter, vide her e-mail filed a rejoinder wherein she stated :-
“a. Health Ministry is a major buyer of condoms for their reproductive and child health programme. Several crores of rupees of public money is spent every year to procure contraceptives, including condoms. At what price the Government buys and whether the procurement process has been transparent is well within the public interest.
b. That there might have been collusion with cartel of manufactures in supplying condoms at a higher price to Government is not ruled out, newspaper article will bear out this fact.
c. The population stabilization is a priority with the Government and reproductive health crucial to public health policy. It is in interest of better governance and transparency that the public is in the know of the correct price of the products procured by the health ministry. Public interest warrants that the information is available.
d. This information is not going to prejudice commercial interest of any affected party, but is sought for research for newspaper article on health issues. Clause 8 (1) (d) is not applicable in this case since the information is sought for bonafide public use.”
A copy of this rejoinder is annexed herewith as Annexure IX.
(xiii) That respondent no 1 had been dismissing many cases without according any hearing. Copies of some such orders passed by respondent no 1 without hearing parties are annexed as Annexure X.
(xiv) Fearing that her case did not meet the same fate, she had telephonic conversation with several officers at respondent no 1 on numerous occasions requesting them that the petitioner should be called for a personal hearing.
(xv) That, despite all the efforts of the petitioner to be given a personal hearing, on 28.08.2006 the respondent no 1 passed the impugned order, in absence, knowledge and without giving hearing to the petitioner, upholding the decision of respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 that the information is barred under section 8 (1) (d) and section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The petitioner was completely shocked by this order of the respondent no 1.
(xvi) That the petitioner, thereafter, has been able to obtain copies of all the file notings of her case with the help of an NGO Parivartan, through Right to Information Act. The file notings, provided by respondent no 1 brought out glaring irregularities about the functioning of the respondent no 1 and its registry.
a. File notings dated 22.2.2006 and 17.06.2006 bear out the fact that the first complaint of the petitioner was closed by respondent no 1 without hearing her and the closure of the case was not even informed to her. A copy of the file notings dated 22.02.2006 and 17.06.2006 are annexed herewith as Annexure XI.
b. File notings further indicate that no action was taken at all by the registry or any official in respondent no 1 on the appeal sent by the petitioner on 22.2.2006 for three months till the petitioner enquired on 09.05.2006, about the status of her appeal from the Chief Information Commissioner. Absolutely no action had been taken by respondent no 1 on petitioner’s file till then. Petitioner wonders what is the system of dealing with the cases at respondent no 1.
c. That the officials at respondent no 1 have admitted vide file notings dated 25.05.2006 and 17.06.2006 that they had lost all the records of the petitioner. Petitioner has also learnt from several other people that this is not the only case in which records have been misplaced. Records have similarly been misplaced by respondent no 1 in many other cases.
(xvii) It is submitted that in view of the facts stated herein above, it is amply clear that the petitioner herein has not left any stone unturned in pursuing her application under the RTI Act dated 02.01.2006 before the office of the respondent no. 2 and respondent no 1 in every possible manner but both the respondent no. 2 and 1 have failed and / or neglected to respond in a positive manner to the various representations, requests and verbal reminders of the petitioner herein till date.
5. Denial of this information has infringed her fundamental right under article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India, granting her freedom of speech and expression as this information was vital for her news paper report to bring out the fact whether there really was a collusion between the condom manufacturers and officials of the Ministry, as alleged, to sell condoms to the Government at a higher price. It is pertinent to mention here that the biggest manufacturer of condoms in India is Hindustan Latex, which is Government owned company and it is also a public authority for the purposes of RTI Act.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner is seriously affected by the exparte decision dated 28.08.2006 of the respondent no 1, wherein the appellant was, in total violation of principles of natural justice, not given any notice of hearing or any personal hearing despite repeated requests by the petitioner.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is seriously aggrieved of the total mismanagement at the registry of the respondent no 1 wherein they did not inform her of the closure of her first complaint, did not take any action on her next appeal for the next three months, then they lost her documents and finally required her to resubmit her appeal in prescribed format five months after filing the appeal.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner has no option except to approach this Hon’ble Court at this stage of the matter.
9. It is submitted that in view of the facts and submissions stated hereinabove it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has done everything that she could under the RTI Act, 2005 and, therefore has a legal and valid right to claim the information from the respondent no. 1 and 2 and respondent no 1 and 2 being public servants are duty bound to consider and grant the information to the petitioner herein at the earliest possible in order to avoid any further loss and damage to the petitioner’s right to information.
10. It is submitted that under the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove, the petitioner has been left with no option and / or alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to file the present writ petition and seek appropriate relief(s) from this Hon’ble Court.
11. It is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi and the office of the respondents’ is also located in Delhi, and as such this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and grant relief(s) as sought for under this writ petition.
12. It is submitted that Annexure I to XI as annexed to this writ petition are true copies of the originals.
13. It is submitted that the petitioner herein reserve their right to further amend, supplement such other further facts and submissions as may be deemed fit and proper and necessary in the interests of justice during the course of the pendency of this writ petition before this Hon’ble Court.
14. It is submitted that there is no equally effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner for relief as claimed and sought for in this writ petition.
15. It is submitted that the petitioner has not filed any other similar petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court or before this Hon’ble Court or any other Courts in India pertaining to the subject matter in the present petition.
16. It is submitted that being seriously affected and aggrieved by the decision of the respondent no.1 with regard to the petitioner’s application under RTI Act, 2005 dated 02.01.2006 as stated hereinabove, the petitioner is preferring this writ petition on following amongst other
G R O U N D S
a. BECAUSE the respondent no 1 in gross violation of principles of natural justice did not give any notice of hearing nor accord any personal hearing to the petitioner and in whimsical and arbitrary manner dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in her absence without giving her any opportunity to present her case.
b. BECAUSE the impugned order dated 28.08.2006 of the respondent no 1 is arbitrary and mechanical and gives no reason as to how section 11 (1) of RTI is applicable in this case. The respondent no 1, despite being informed by the petitioner, that the Ministry of Health is a major buyer of the condoms and is spending crores of public money to procure condoms and it would be in larger public interest to know the price at which it is purchasing condoms and also the procurement process and that this information would not prejudice commercial interest of any party and that it was needed for a news paper report, did not direct the respondent no 2 to furnish a copy of report of respondent no 3. Section 11 (1) is being reproduced herein below for the convenience of the Court
“11 Third party information
(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by a third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the 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 State Public Information Officer, as the case may be intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party o make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:
PROVIDED that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party”
In the present case, petitioner has sought copy of a report which deals with allegations of nexus between Government officials and condom manufacturers and possibility of a cartel made by these manufacturers to inflate the prices at which condoms are procured by the Government. Whereas there is a larger public interest involved, the impugned order does not mention how any of the commercial interests of condom manufacturers would be violated.
c. BECAUSE the respondent no 1, vide its impugned order dated 28.08.2006, has mechanically applied section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act denying the report to the petitioner. Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act is being reproduced herein
“8. Exemption from disclosure of information
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;”
The impugned order of respondent no 1 does not mention what commercial interests or trade secrets or intellectual property of the condom manufacturers would be affected by the disclosure of the report and how would its disclosure harm their competitive position. Respondent no 2 has simply denied information under this section without giving any reasons and respondent no 1 has accepted such denial.
d. BECAUSE Sec 8(1)(d) mentions that even if the disclosure of information is likely to affect the competitive position of third party, information should still be provided if larger public interest is involved. Since the information in question deals with allegations of corruption and collusion between Ministry officials and a cartel of condom manufacturers and since it deals with loss of huge amount of public money, information should have been disclosed under this clause in public interest.
e. BECAUSE several provisions of Right to Information Act clearly state that information should be provided if public interest overweighs any private interest. Even in the case of security and intelligence organizations exempt from Right to Information Act under sec 24, information dealing with allegations of corruption is required to be disclosed. In the present case, the information sought by the petitioner seeks to bring out in public domain the prices at which condoms are being supplied to the Government and the process followed in their procurement. This information is certainly in public interest and should have been disclosed.
f. BECAUSE the respondent no 1 has dismissed the application in a mechanical manner without due application of mind and blindly believing the arguments forwarded by respondent no 2. Whether actually the commercial confidence of any third party would be violated could have been established only after perusing the said report. However, respondent no 1 did not care to even go through this report.
g. BECAUSE the said report of respondent no 3 was made in the background of allegation of a cartel formed by condom manufacturers and they providing condoms at a higher price, to the Government, in collusion with ministry officials. The petitioner has a right to know whether the allegations are true and whether there had been wrongdoings in the procurement of condoms so far. Denial of this report has kept this critical information out of public domain.
h. BECAUSE the respondent no 1, at every stage of the petitioner’s appeal has violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner was neither given any notice for any personal hearing nor was she asked her comments before the closure of her complaint dated 10.1.2006.
i. BECAUSE the appeal of the petitioner dated 21.2.2006 was also rejected by respondent no 1 without giving the petitioner any opportunity of personal hearing, despite several requests made by the petitioner for a hearing.
j. BECAUSE the respondent no 1 has been dismissing many other cases without hearing the appellants, thus violating principles of natural justice.
k. BECAUSE the registry of the respondent no 1 not only misplaced the documents of the petitioner but also did not take any action on her appeal until she wrote to respondent no 1 asking about the status of her case vide her e-mail dated 09.05.2006.
l. BECAUSE there are no rules, proper systems, guidelines and procedures of file management, receipt of cases and handling of cases at the registry of the respondent no 1.
m. BECAUSE the respondents have failed to appreciate that the petitioner has been granted various rights under the RTI Act, 2005 by the legislator and such rights cannot be taken away on the whims and fancies of the respondents.
n. BECAUSE when the RTI Act, 2005 was enshrined the main intention of the legislator was to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and to stop corruption by way of giving access to the citizens of India to such information. The same is evident from the Preamble of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced for the convenience of this Hon’ble Court as under:-
“An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;
AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;
AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to have it.”
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take this Writ Petition into consideration and issue appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari, writ of mandamus and / or such other writ(s) as may be deemed fit and proper to
(a) quash the arbitrary order dated 28.08.2006 of the respondent no 1; and
(b) directing/ordering the respondents no 1, 2 and 3 herein to furnish information as requested by the petitioner herein vide her application under RTI Act, 2005 dated 02.01.2006 wherein the petitioner sought a copy of report on realistic cost of condoms submitted by respondent no 3 to respondent no 2; and
(c) order initiation of an appropriate departmental proceedings against the registry of respondent no 1 for their gross mismanagement, losing files and records, and not taking any action on files for several months; and
(d) direct respondent no 1 to follow principles of natural justice at every stage of every appeal; and
(e) direct respondent no 1 to lay down rules, guidelines and develop proper systems and procedures for receipt of cases, handling of files, informing appellants about the status of their cases and take prompt action on every case received by the registry of respondent no 1; and
(f) and also pass such other further order(s), direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL EVERY AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
Petitioner
Through
Advocate
New Delhi
Date: .02.2007
IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Yoga Rangatia ..Petitioner
Versus
Central Information Commissioner and ors ..Respondent
A F F I D A V I T
I, Yoga Rangatia, aged 33 years, d/o Mr Sanatkumar Rangatia, R/o 53 D, Pocket C, Sidhartha Extension, New Delhi-_110014, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-
That I am Petitioner in the present case and as such I am acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case and competent to swear this affidavit.
That I have read the contents of the accompanying Writ Petition and the same has been drafted under my instructions and I say that the contents thereof are true to my knowledge.
The annexure I to X of the Writ petition are true copies of their respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this the th day of February, 2007 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and also on the basis of information received and believed to be correct. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT.
IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Yoga Rangatia ..Petitioner
Versus
Central Information Commissioner and ors ..Respondent
INDEX
S.No. Particulars Court Fee Page No.
1. Notice of Motion A
2. Urgent Application B
3. Memo of Parties C
3. List of Dates and Events D to H
4. Copy of Impugned Order dated 28.08.2006 I to J
5. Writ Petition along with Affidavit Rs. 50.00 1 to 20
6. Annexure I 21
A copy of the application of
the petitioner dated 02.01.2006
7. Annexure II 22
A copy of the Complaint of
the petitioner dated 10.01.2006
8. Annexure III 23
A copy of the e-mail dated 07.02.2006
9. Annexure IV 24
A copy of this appeal dated 22.02.2006
10. Annexure V 25 to 26
A copy of this e-mail dated 09.05.2006
11. Annexure VI 27 to 29
A copy of Letter dated 28.06.06
12. Annexure VII 30
A copy of notice dated 07.08.2006
13. Annexure VIII 31
A copy of letter dated 28.07.2006
14. Annexure IX 32
A copy of rejoinder.
15. Annexure X 33 to 39
Copies of some orders passed
without giving personal hearing
16. Annexure XI 40 to 50
Copies of File Notings.
17. Vakalatnama 51
(Advocate)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF:
Yoga Rangatia, … Petitioner
Versus
Central Information Commissioner
and ors … Respondents
MEMO OF PARTIES
Yoga Rangatia,
Principal Correspondent, The Pioneer,
Link House 3, Bahadur Shah Zafar marg,
New Delhi -110 002. … Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Information Commissioner
4th & 5th Floor, Block No. IV,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi 110067
2. Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
SSM Division,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi 110001
3. Tariff Commission,
7th Floor, (A Wing),
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
Khan Market,
New Delhi - 110003
(Advocate)