Whether order copy obtained under RTI can be treated as certified copy?
Admittedly, a copy of the order was not furnished or
served on the petitioner along with the intimation dated
28/10/2016. By the said intimation, the petitioner was only
informed that the RTA had decided to reject the application of the
petitioner. A bare perusal of Rule 98 of the Rules would show that
it envisages filing of an appeal within 30 days from the date of
'receipt of the order'. Even otherwise, a party would not be in a
position to file an appeal unless a copy of the impugned judgment
and order is available with the party. A mere intimation about
dismissal or allowing of the application would not be sufficient in
as much as the party must know the reasons for which the
application was rejected before it can challenge the order before
the Tribunal. It is now well settled that the knowledge of any
judgment or order is knowledge of the contents of such judgment
or order and the reasons articulated and the findings recorded in
the order, which is sought to be challenged. That apart, the rule
itself provides for filing of the appeal within 30 days from the
receipt of the order and not mere intimation. The petitioner
obtained the copy of the order under RTI Act, which was furnished
to him on 23/11/2016. The appeal was filed on 02/12/2016. Thus,
the appeal was filed within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of
the order. The order was supplied by the RTA and bears an
endorsement about it being a true copy. It is nobody's case that
the order produced along with the appeal was not in fact the order
passed by the RTA. In that view of the matter, I find that it could
not be said that the appeal was not accompanied by a certified
copy of the order of the RTA. Reliance placed on behalf of the
respondent on Rule 99 is misplaced, which envisages supply of
copy of the “documents” to “persons interested in appeal or
revision.” A bare perusal of rule 99 shows that it would come into
play after filing of the appeal or revision and for obtaining the
copies of the documents filed with the RTA. In any case, it would
be highly unjust first not to supply an aggrieved person a copy of
the order and when he obtains the same under the RTI to say that
it is not a certified copy. In such circumstances, I find that the
petition has to succeed.
IN
served on the petitioner along with the intimation dated
28/10/2016. By the said intimation, the petitioner was only
informed that the RTA had decided to reject the application of the
petitioner. A bare perusal of Rule 98 of the Rules would show that
it envisages filing of an appeal within 30 days from the date of
'receipt of the order'. Even otherwise, a party would not be in a
position to file an appeal unless a copy of the impugned judgment
and order is available with the party. A mere intimation about
dismissal or allowing of the application would not be sufficient in
as much as the party must know the reasons for which the
application was rejected before it can challenge the order before
the Tribunal. It is now well settled that the knowledge of any
judgment or order is knowledge of the contents of such judgment
or order and the reasons articulated and the findings recorded in
the order, which is sought to be challenged. That apart, the rule
itself provides for filing of the appeal within 30 days from the
receipt of the order and not mere intimation. The petitioner
obtained the copy of the order under RTI Act, which was furnished
to him on 23/11/2016. The appeal was filed on 02/12/2016. Thus,
the appeal was filed within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of
the order. The order was supplied by the RTA and bears an
endorsement about it being a true copy. It is nobody's case that
the order produced along with the appeal was not in fact the order
passed by the RTA. In that view of the matter, I find that it could
not be said that the appeal was not accompanied by a certified
copy of the order of the RTA. Reliance placed on behalf of the
respondent on Rule 99 is misplaced, which envisages supply of
copy of the “documents” to “persons interested in appeal or
revision.” A bare perusal of rule 99 shows that it would come into
play after filing of the appeal or revision and for obtaining the
copies of the documents filed with the RTA. In any case, it would
be highly unjust first not to supply an aggrieved person a copy of
the order and when he obtains the same under the RTI to say that
it is not a certified copy. In such circumstances, I find that the
petition has to succeed.
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.361 of 2018
Shri Khurram Khazi,Vs. The Regional Transport Authority,
CORAM :- C. V. BHADANG, J.
WRIT PETITION NO.361 of 2018
Shri Khurram Khazi,Vs. The Regional Transport Authority,
CORAM :- C. V. BHADANG, J.
