LexKHANAPURAM GANDAIAH versus ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 1 KHANAPURAM GANDAIAH v. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34868 of 2009) JANUARY 4, 2010 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND DR. 8$. CHAUHAN, J.] Right to Information Act, 2005: A B c ss. 2(f) and 6 - 'Information' - Application uls 6 before Administrative Officer-cum-Assistant State Public Information Officer, asking as for what reasons a Judicial Officer had dismissed a miscellaneous appeal - HELD: Under s. 6, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be 0 accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force - The answers sought by petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have access to the information - A judge speaks through his judgments and orders passed by him - He is not E bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion - If any party feels aggrieved, the remedy available is to challenge the decision by way of appeal, revision or any other legally permissible mode - No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reason the judge had came to a particular conclusion - F Application filed by the petitioner before the public authority is per se illegal and unwarranted - A Judicial Officer is entitled to protection and the object of the same is to protect public from the dangers to which the administration of justice would be exposed if judicial officers were exposed to inquiry as to G malice or to litigation with those whom their decision might offend - If any thing is done contrary to this, it would certainly affect the Independence of the judiciary - "A judge should be free to make decisions - As the petitioner has misused the \ 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R. A provisions of the RT/ Act, High Court rightly dismissed his writ petition - Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850 - Independence of judiciary. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. B 34868 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 24.4.2009 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 28810 of 2008. c V. Kanagraj, Parmanand Gaur for the Petitioner. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER D 1. This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.4.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.28810 of 2008 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which the writ petition against the order of dismissal of the petitioner's application and successive appeals under the Right E to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called the "RTI Act") has been dismissed. In the said petition, the direction was sought by the Petitioner to the Respondent No.1 to provide information as asked by him vide his application dated 15.11.2006 from the Respondent No.4 - a Judicial Officer as for what reasons, F the Respondent No.4 had decided his Miscellaneous Appeal dishonestly. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are, that the petitioner claimed to be in exclusive possession of the land in respect of which civil suit No.854 of 2002 was G filed before Additional Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District praying for perpetual injunction by Dr. Mallikarjina Rao against the petitioner and another, from entering into the suit land. Application filed. for interim relief in the said suit stood dismissed. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff therein preferred CMA H No.185 of 2002 and the same was also dismissed. Two other KHANAPURAM GANDAIAH v. ADMINISTRATIVE 3 OFFICER & ORS. suits were filed in respect of the same property impleading the A Petitioner also as the defendant. In one of the suits i.e. O.S. No.875 of 2003, the Trial Court granted temporary injunction against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, Petitioner preferred the CMA No.67 of 2005, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court - Respondent No.4 vide order dated 10.8.2006. B 3. Petitioner filed an application dated 15.11.2006 under Section 6 of the RTI Act before the Administrative Officer-cum- Assistant State Public Information Officer (respondent no.1) seeking information to the queries mentioned therein. The said application was rejected vide order dated 23.11.2006 and an C appeal against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 20.1.2007. Second Appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.