Jump to content
sidmis

No need to make illegal mining report public

Recommended Posts

sidmis

No need to make illegal mining report public

as reported in Express Buz, Express News Service 31 Dec 2008

 

BANGALORE: The High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the state government to make public the Lokayukta report on illegal mining which was submitted to the government on December 18.

 

The vacation judge bench comprising Justice K Bhakthavasala and Justice K Srinivasa Gowda dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no merit in it.

 

“The contention of the petition is not acceptable.

 

There is no law that could direct the government to publish a report without studying it. It is the duty of the administration to decide whether to make the report public or not,” the court observed.

 

The court also observed that the petitioner had the liberty to approach the government under the Right to Information Act to access the report.

 

The petition was filed by city-based advocate S Vasudevan, questioning the government’s action of appointing a three-member committee of IAS officers to oversee the Lokayukta report.

 

Vasudevan had submitted that as the Lokayukta had indicted 12 IAS (Indian Administrative Service) officers in the report for abetting the illegal mining, the committee could tamper with the report and that further inquiry on the report was illegal.

 

No need to make illegal mining report public=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • momita
      By momita
      Eleven years after a lawyer sought details under the Right to Information Act from the Gujarat high court, the HC directed its public information officer (PIO) to furnish the details to the applicant.
      According to the commission's advocate, Shivang Shukla, an advocate, Kamlesh Bhavsar, had in 2007 sought information regarding appointment of judges to the Gujarat judiciary since 1990. The PIO supplied information regarding corruption charges against judicial officers and about their convictions within the time limit.

      However, the PIO refused to supply information on Bhavsar's request to furnish the names of all the judges - from the rank of judicial magistrate first class in the lower courts to the justices of the high court - appointed between 1990 and 2007. The PIO told the lawyer that he has asked for the information from the branches concernedand collating the details would take more time. He said he would supply information about the appointments as and when he got the details.

      On the PIO's refusal to part with the information at the same time, citing the delay in collating the details, Bhavsar filed an appeal before the state information commission, seeking a reply from the HC PIO about the applicant's grievance. In reply to commission's query, the HC's PIO explained his position and sent the details that had been collated to the commission, for it to supply to the lawyer. The PIO sent the information to the commission and requested it to supply the details to advocate Bhavsar, if it thought it fit.

      The commission ordered the HC PIO to supply the information to the lawyer. This did not go down well with the HC authorities and the registry challenged the commission's order on the judicial side in 2011. The HC last week dismissed its own petition.
      While directing the PIO to supply the information to the lawyer under RTE laws, Justice A J Desai dismissed the petition filed by the high court itself, in which it had challenged the directions issued to the HC by the Gujarat Information Commission, for furnishing the required information to the lawyer.

       

      View full entry
    • momita
      By momita
      According to the commission's advocate, Shivang Shukla, an advocate, Kamlesh Bhavsar, had in 2007 sought information regarding appointment of judges to the Gujarat judiciary since 1990. The PIO supplied information regarding corruption charges against judicial officers and about their convictions within the time limit.

      However, the PIO refused to supply information on Bhavsar's request to furnish the names of all the judges - from the rank of judicial magistrate first class in the lower courts to the justices of the high court - appointed between 1990 and 2007. The PIO told the lawyer that he has asked for the information from the branches concernedand collating the details would take more time. He said he would supply information about the appointments as and when he got the details.

      On the PIO's refusal to part with the information at the same time, citing the delay in collating the details, Bhavsar filed an appeal before the state information commission, seeking a reply from the HC PIO about the applicant's grievance. In reply to commission's query, the HC's PIO explained his position and sent the details that had been collated to the commission, for it to supply to the lawyer. The PIO sent the information to the commission and requested it to supply the details to advocate Bhavsar, if it thought it fit.

      The commission ordered the HC PIO to supply the information to the lawyer. This did not go down well with the HC authorities and the registry challenged the commission's order on the judicial side in 2011. The HC last week dismissed its own petition.
      While directing the PIO to supply the information to the lawyer under RTE laws, Justice A J Desai dismissed the petition filed by the high court itself, in which it had challenged the directions issued to the HC by the Gujarat Information Commission, for furnishing the required information to the lawyer.

       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy