Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court (HC) on Friday granted an interim stay on Maharashtra State Information Commission’s order that had directed the court’s administration to disclose information regarding applications made by High Court judges to the state government for allotment of residential plots or apartments. A division bench of Justices Bhushan Gavai and Sandeep Shinde, which was specially constituted, admitted a writ petition filed by the HC deputy registrar, challenging the commission’s order.
On July 21, State Information Commissioner (Greater Mumbai) Ajit Kumar Jain had passed an order directing the deputy registrar of the HC to furnish information pertaining to all such applications made since 2010. Jain had contended that the correspondence between the HC registrar general and the government in this context was part of government records. “Citizens have a right to get information on whatever specific concessions are given to judges or any other category of persons (with regard to allotment of plots or residential units),” Jain had argued.
Jain’s order further stated, “From the point of view of common citizens, it was necessary to have transparency in the process of flat or plot allotments. Hence this information was admissible in public interest.”
Besides applications of judges and correspondences with the government, the HC deputy registrar was required to furnish information giving details of all the judges who had availed such allotments, along with disclosures regarding the plots or the apartments allotted.
Deepa Tilokani, an RTI activist, had originally filed an application in this regard with the deputy registrar’s office, which had dismissed the application. “The copies of applications filed by the judges of the Bombay HC for allotment of plots are not maintained and available with this office. The copies of applications filed by the judges for allotment of residential units are forwarded by the office of the registrar general to the state government. However, the desired information is not available in public domain. Hence, it is exempted from disclosures under the Bombay High Court Right to Information (Revised) Rules, 2009,” the deputy registrar’s office had replied.
While declining information sought regarding the names of beneficiary judges and details of plots or residences allotted, the deputy registrar’s office had further contended that the information “cannot be classified as falling within public domain” and that “such a disclosure would cause invasion of privacy of the individual.” On April 1, the First Appellate Authority of the HC dismissed Tilokani’s appeal against this ruling, following which she had approached the state information commission.
The writ petition filed by the deputy registrar stated that the information commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction. The registrar’s counsel Sudeep Nargolkar argued before the court that “since the applications made by judges did not form a part of their judicial duty, there was no obligation under any rule or law on the registrar general’s office to retain or maintain these records. Its role was limited to receiving applications and sending them forward to the government.”
Mihir Desai, counsel for Tilokani, said, “The petition was admitted by the court and an interim stay was granted on the order of the state information commissioner.”
