Letters Patent Appeal No. 1174 of 2011 (O and M). Case: Punjab Cricket Association Vs State Information Commission and Anr.. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | Letters Patent Appeal No. 1174 of 2011 (O and M) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anil Kshetarpal in LPA No. of 2011, Mr. Harit Sharma, in LPA Nos. 1190, 1191 and 1192 of 2011, Mr. Ashwani Prashar, in LPA Nos. 1621 and 1892 of 2011, Mr. Satnam Singh Gill and Mr. Anil Kumar Spehia in LPA No. 1210 of 2011, Mr. H.S. Bedi in LPA No. 2223 of 2011, Mr. Inderpal Singh in LPA ... |
| Judges | Ajay Kumar Mittal and Jaspal Singh, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 12, 19(1)(a), 21, 226, 235; Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 18(1)(c), 2(h), 2(h)(d)(i'), 2(h)(d)(ii), 6(1), 8 |
| Citation | 2014 (174) PLR 249, 2014 (2) PLR 408 |
| Judgement Date | December 12, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 1002, 1174, 1190-92, 1210, 1299, 1407, 1409, 1419 to 1425, 1464, 1479, 1511, 1531, 1621, 1892 and 2223 of 2011 as learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the legal issue involved in all these appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from LPA No. 1174 of 2011. Challenge in all these appeals is to the common judgment dated 9.5.2011 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed. In LPA No. 1174 of 2011, the appellant-Punjab Cricket Association, SAS Nagar (Mohali) is a society registered under the Societies' Registration Act, 1860. On 20.9.2007, respondent No. 2 filed an application under section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, "the RTI Act") seeking information from the appellant society. Having got no reply, respondent No. 2 on 29.10.2007 filed a complaint, Annexure P.1 under Section 18(1)(c) of the RTI Act in the State Information Commission, Punjab (in short, SIC). Notice of the complaint was issued to the appellant. The appellant objected to the jurisdiction of the Information Commission under the RTI Act. It was pointed out that since the appellant society was not covered by the provisions of the said Act, it was not under any obligation to provide the information sought. Initially an application for rejection of the complaint on the ground that the appellant society was not a "public authority" falling within the jurisdiction of the RTI Act was filed by the appellant society. Thereafter, another application was filed with a prayer to adjudicate the question of jurisdiction first before proceeding in the matter. Respondent No. 2 filed written arguments on 31.1.2008 on the issue contending that Punjab Cricket Association fell within the ambit of the term "public authority" under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act. The SIC vide order dated 31.1.2008, Annexure P.5 directed the appellant to submit copies of certain documents to decide the exact status of the Punjab Cricket Association. The appellant submitted the required documents. It was further submitted by the appellant that there was neither any regular grant nor any aid being given by the State or any of its departments. Similarly, dissatisfied with the action of State Public Information officers (SPIOs) in not supplying the requisite information, some of the appellants in connected cases filed appeals before the first appellate authority but no information was supplied to them. Thereafter, they filed second appeals before the State Information Commissions, Punjab and Haryana. The said appeals were allowed and the SICs came to the conclusion that the provisions of RTI Act were applicable to the appellant-institutions and that they were legally bound to provide the information sought. The SIC vide order dated 19.8.2008, Annexure P.10 in LPA No. 1174 of 2011 declared the Punjab Cricket Association a "public authority" within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant approached this Court through Civil writ petition. Similarly other appellants also filed writ petitions in this Court. The said writ petitions have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 9.5.2011 impugned herein. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeals by the appellants.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013 decided on 7.10.2013, Thalappalam Sen Coop. Bank Limited and others v. State of Kerala and others, to contend that judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9.5.2011 being contrary to the said authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. It was also submitted that the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petitions while upholding the order passed by the SIC. Consequently, the order passed by the SIC be also set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the SIC and the learned Single Judge.
4. In Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Limited's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court delving into the issue whether the societies...
To continue reading
Request your trial