Suppression of prior litigation disentitles a petitioner from invoking writ jurisdiction for RTI enforcement.

The petitioner filed an application under Rule 3(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act on 12/11/2021 before the RTI Officer, Collector Office, Bhuj (Respondent No. 3), seeking specific documents.

Due to non-responsiveness, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act before the Gujarat Information Commission (Respondent No. 1) on 28/02/2022.

On 27/07/2022, the Commission ordered the transfer of the application to Respondent No. 4; however, the petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 4 failed to provide the documents and that Respondent No. 1 failed to initiate an inquiry or impose penalties under Section 20 of the Act.

During the hearing, Respondent No. 4 revealed that the petitioner was a party to Original Application No. 53 of 2020 (WZ) before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which was decided on 08/09/2021—prior to the filing of the present writ petition.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought under the RTI Act and Article 226 of the Constitution given the alleged failure of the authorities to provide documents.

2. Whether the petitioner’s failure to disclose the final adjudication of the related National Green Tribunal (NGT) proceedings constituted a suppression of material facts warranting dismissal of the petition.

The court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the equitable principle that a petitioner must approach the court with "clean hands" and disclose all material facts.

The court further referenced the procedural framework of the Right to Information Act, 2005, specifically Section 18 (powers of the Commission to inquire into complaints) and Section 20 (imposition of penalties).

The court observed that the petitioner was fully aware that Original Application No. 53 of 2020 (WZ) had been decided by the NGT on 08/09/2021, as the petitioner was a party to those proceedings.

Despite this knowledge, the petitioner filed the present petition in 2023 without disclosing that the underlying matter had reached finality or that the documents sought were accessible through his advocate in the NGT proceedings.

The court reasoned that the RTI application and the subsequent writ petition were used to seek documents already available to the petitioner through prior litigation.

This non-disclosure was deemed a "suppression of material facts" intended to mislead the court.

The court noted that such conduct typically warrants the imposition of heavy costs, though it showed leniency in this instance only because the petitioner was represented via the Legal Aid Committee.

The court held that the petitioner’s failure to disclose the conclusion of the NGT proceedings disentitled him to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Rule was discharged, and no orders were passed regarding the merits of the RTI inquiry or penalties.