number of vacancies which have fallen to the share of the specified
category and whether such posts have been filled up from amongst
the eligible candidates. If such information is disclosed, it will lead
to transparent administration which is antithesis of corruption. If
organization has nothing to hide or to cover a corrupt practice, the
information should be made available. The information sought may
help in dispelling favoritism, nepotism or arbitrariness. Such
information is necessary for establishing the transparent
administration. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order
passed by the State Information Commissioner, Haryana and
affirmed by learned Single Judge in the orders impugned in the
present appeals.
Dismissed.”
Section 24 (4) of the Act is reproduced below:-
“24. Act not to apply to certain organizations:
Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and
security organizations, being organizations established by the State
Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of
corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under
this sub-section:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is
in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information
shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information
Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7,
such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the
date of the receipt of request.”
Thus, the Division Bench has held that even where the State
Government is empowered by issuance of notification to exempt certain
organizations from the applicability of the Act yet in respect of information
pertaining to allegation of corruption shall not be excluded under Sub
Section (4) of Section 24 of the Act.
In the present case as noticed the petitioner seeks the
information regarding the corruption and details of corruption cases
pertaining to the public servants in the State of Haryana. Keeping in view
the above principles laid down by the Division Bench in First Appellate
Authority-cum-Additional Director General of Police's case (supra) and
fact that the judgment of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande's case (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of
the present case, this Court is of the opinion that order 2.4.2014 (Annexure
P/6) passed the respondent-Commission requires a revisit and cannot be
sustained.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order 2.4.2014 (Annexure P/6) passed by the respondentCommission
is quashed. The respondent-Commission shall decide the
second appeal afresh keeping in view the above principles laid down by the
Division Bench in First Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Director
General of Police's case
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.17718 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26.7.2016
Subhash ..
V
State Information Commission, Haryana and others .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
