Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)
1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :
"(i) Issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide requisite information as per the letter dated 28.10.2014 contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.
(ii) Issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to conclude vigilance inquiry and take appropriate action against the erring persons who embezzled Rs.23.93 lakhs in a month as cash conveyance.
(iii) Such any other order or direction under the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(iv) Allow the writ petition of the petitioner with costs."
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that with regard to certain alleagtions of embezzlement he has sought information on 28.10.2014 from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Head Post Office, Raebareilly. On not receiving the desired information, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Director, Postal Department on 02.12.2014, who by means of order dated 31.12.2014, directed the Superintendent of Post Offices to provide information within fifteen days'. The petitioner submitted that desired information was not given to him by the Superintendent of Post Offices and on being aggrieved he approached Chief Information Commissioner, New Delhi on 28.01.2015. Further on 01.03.2016, the Chief Information Commissioner directed the authorities concerned to provide information to the petitioner within fifteen days' and allowed the petitioner to inspect the relevant records and to take photo copies thereof, free of cost up to twenty pages. In pursuance to the aforesaid directions, some information has been given by the Postal Department to the petitioner. On 16.12.2016, the petitioner again wrote a letter to the Director, Postal Department for providing enquiry report as well the statements of four persons against who charges of embezzlement have been proved.
4. It is further submitted on behalf of petitioner that as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2005") the petitioner has right to get the certified copies of the bills and vouchers relating to the embezzlement of amount and action taken by the Department, but despite making repeated applications, the respondents are not giving any information to the petitioner and hence he has approached this Court by means of present writ petition.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Raebareilly Division, Raebareilly, wherein he has stated that the available information has been provided to the petitioner on 27.11.2014. He has further submitted that as per direction of Chief Information Commissioner, the petitioner was requested to inspect the records available in the Office, but the petitioner denied to inspect the same and stated that he wanted to know what action has been taken against the above mentioned persons and he is not interested in any other record. It has also been submitted that three further opportunities were given to the petitioner to inspect the record vide letter dated 08.02.2017, but the petitioner did not come for inspection of the said record and therefore contention is that the respondents have never denied any information to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the respondents have complied with the orders passed by the various authorities under the Act, 2005. It has further been stated that with regard to the allegations of embezzlement also an enquiry has been set up and the matter has been proceeded with.
6. The writ petition has been opposed on the ground that the petitioner is not seeking any information rather he wants to know as to what action has been taken against the persons named by him in the writ petition. It has also been submitted that a writ petition is not maintainable with regard to prayer no. 1 inasmuch as requisite information as sought by the petitioner by means of letter dated 28.10.2014, has already been provided and he has been permitted to inspect the records as directed by the Chief Information Commissioner in his order dated 01.03.2016. It is next submitted that with regard to prayer no. 2, the present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner does not has any locus for praying for the said relief and he has not disclosed his credentials anywhere in the writ petition and the present writ petition not being in the nature of public interest litigation, deserves to be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with regard to the objections raised by learned Standing Counsel that under the Act, 2005 there is no provision for disclosing relation between the applicant and information sought by him and therefore in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking implementation of any provision or orders passed under the Act, 2005, the petitioner cannot be compelled to disclose his credentials and therefore present writ petition would be maintainable without the petitioner disclosing his credentials.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. From the perusal of record it is clear that the petitioner has moved an application seeking certain information from the Public Information Officer/Superintendent of Post Officers, Raebareilly with regard to the conveyance charges paid, for which according to the petitioner, were to the tune of Rs.23.93 Lakh and also progress of the departmental enquiry in this regard and also the amount disbursed to the four officials for the period 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 per month for cash conveyance. Being dissatisfied with the information given to him the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner, New Delhi, which was decided on 1st March, 2016, whereby the Superintendent of Post Offices was directed to allow the petitioner to inspect the relevant records and also permitted him to take photo copies of them free of cost up to twenty pages., within fifteen days' from the date of receipt of the order.
10. The Superintendent of Post Offices has categorically stated that the petitioner refused to inspect the records and only wanted to know what action has been taken against the named officials and he has no interest to see any other record. The petitioner was granted three opportunities to inspect the record but he did not present himself for any inspection despite being given due opportunity.
11. The information sought by the petitioner by means of application dated 28.10.2014, has also been provided to him vide letter dated 27.11.2014 and it was also informed to him that the matter has been enquired against the officials with regard to misappropriation of Government money by the Vigilence Department and twenty pages free of cost were provided to him by means of letter dated 04.05.2016.
12. From the perusal of record it is clear that the entire information as sought by the petitioner has been provided to him, but, it is further observed that under the Act, 2005, word "information" has been defined as under :
"(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, date 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;"
13. Under the Act, 2005, only information defined above can be given and no person as under the Act, 2005 can ask as to what particular decision has been taken. He can only be given copy of the decision so taken by any authority. Information as desired by the petitioner has also been given to him and therefore, we are satisfied that with regard to prayer-(i) made by the petitioner, no order need be passed in the light of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.
14. With regard to prayer - (ii), seeking writ of mandamus to conclude the vigilence enquiry against the erring officials, when a question was put to the counsel for the petitioner to show his locus standi to maintain the said prayer in the writ petition, he submitted that petitioner is not obliged to disclose his credentials while making an application under the Act, 2005 and therefore while filing the writ petition for compliance of the provisions of the Act, 2005, he is not required to disclose his credentials and therefore he has not stated any thing in this regard in the writ petition.
15. The law with regard to locus standi of an individual who approaches the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is well settled.
16. The Apex Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar and Others, (1976) 1 SCC 671, in paragraph 33, observed as under :
"33. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article an applicant should ordinarily be one who has & personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter-(See State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal. MANU/SC/0012/1951 : [1952]1SCR28 ; Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal MANU/SC/0063/1962 : AIR1962SC1044 ; Ram Umeshwari Suthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue Orissa ; Gadda Venkateshwara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0020/1965 : [1966]2SCR172 ; State of Orissa v. Rajasaheb Chandanmall MANU/SC/0538/1972; Dr. Satyanarayana Sinha v. S. Lal & Co. MANU/SC/0039/1973 : [1974]1SCR615 ."
17. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 465 the Supreme Court in paragraph 7, observed as under :
"7. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons.
Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the Appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the Appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide: State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta MANU/SC/0012/1951 : AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad and Anr. v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0110/1954 : AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. MANU/SC/0063/1962 : AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0690/1996 : AIR 1996 SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar and Ors. MANU/SC/8375/2008 : (2009) 2 SCC 784)."
18. In Ajit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, 2017 (9) ADJ 251 the Apex Court in paragraph 34.7, has observed as under :-
"34.7 The Supreme Court in M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala, MANU/SC/0627/2000 : (2000) 7 SCC 552, examined the issue of "locus standi" from all angles and, in short, held that the person should be asked to disclose the legal injury suffered by him and if he cannot, then, obviously, the person has no locus standi to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The observations made by the Supreme Court after considering its judgments in Nagar Rice & Flour Mills v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros, MANU/SC/0453/1970 : (1970) 1 SCC 575 and in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra) in paragraph 12 are relevant, which read thus:
"12. In this context we noticed that this Court has changed from the earlier strict interpretation regarding locus standi as adopted in Nagar Rice & Flour Mills v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros., MANU/SC/0453/1970 : (1970) 1 SCC 575 and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, MANU/SC/0011/1975 : (1976) 1 SCC 671 and a much wider canvass has been adopted in later years regarding a persons entitlement to move the High Court involving writ jurisdiction. A four-Judge Bench in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra) pointed out three categories of persons vis-?-vis the locus standi: (1) a person aggrieved; (2) a stranger; and (3) a busybody or a meddlesome interloper. Learned Judges in that decision pointed out that anyone belonging to the third category is easily distinguishable and such person interferes in things which do not concern him as he masquerades to be a crusader of justice. The Judgment has cautioned that the High Court should do well to reject the petitions of such busybody at the threshold itself. Then their Lordships observed the following: (SCC p. 683, para 38) "38. The distinction between the first and second categories of applicants, though real, is not always well demarcated. The first category has as it were, two concentric zones; a solid central zone of certainty, and a grey outer circle of lessening certainty in a sliding centrifugal scale, with an outermost nebulous fringe of uncertainty. Applicants falling within the central zone are those whose legal rights have been infringed. Such applicants undoubtedly stand in the category of persons aggrieved. In the grey outer circle the bounds which separate the first category from the second, intermix, interfuse and overlap increasingly in a centrifugal direction. All persons in this outer zone may not be 'persons aggrieved'."
19. With regard to second prayer, whereby the petitioner has sought direction commanding the respondent to conclude the vigilence enquiry and take appropriate action against the erring persons who embezzled Rs.23.93 lakhs in a month as cash conveyance, is a prayer which has been made for the first time before this Court and is not connected with the relief sought by the petitioner before the authorities under the Right To Information Act.
20. Following the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited herein above, it is clear that in order to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has to demonstrate infringement of some legal right or prejudice of some legal right inherent in him which is necessary to to show that he is aggrieved by some action/inaction of the authority of the State.
21. It is also well settled legal position that a stranger cannot be permitted to participate in any proceedings unless he satisfies the Court that he falls within the category of aggrieved person. Perusal of writ petition does not disclose the details of the petitioner and as to in what manner he is affected with the vigilence enquiry or his interest in seeking expeditious conclusion of the same. In absence of any of these details, coupled with the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner is not liable to disclose his antecedents and his details. We are constrained to note that the writ petition with regard to prayer no. 2 cannot be maintained. The petitioner before us is totally stranger to the issue raised by him as mentioned in the paragraph 2 of the prayer clause of the writ petition.
22. In the light of above, with regard to prayer no. 2 the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner seems to be totally stranger, he does not have any legal interest or is aggrieved in any manner and therefore such a relief cannot be granted.
23. In view of the reasons stated herein above, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 A. Verma