Must read Judgement
2amabad]
Before Aamer Farooq, CJ
PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY through Chairman---Petitioner
Versus
PAKISTAN INFORMATION COMMISSION and another---Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3720 of 2022, decided on 5th January, 2024.
Right of Access to Information Act (XXXIV of 2017)---
----Ss. 7 & 11---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9, 10, 10A, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26 & 199---Constitutional petition---Access to information---Scope---Words "citizen" and "person"---Distinction---Petitioner/ Pakistan Telecommunication Authority was aggrieved of order passed by Pakistan Information Commission directing petitioner to hand over minutes of meeting in question---Validity---For various fundamental rights, the word "citizen" has been used viz. rights provided under Arts. 15 to 20, 23, 25 and 26 of the Constitution, whereas in some other fundamental rights, the word used was "person" (Arts. 9 to 10A, 12, 13 & 24 of the Constitution)---Use of different terminologies cannot be an oversight and where two separate terms are used, it means that two different meaning are to be attributed---Certain rights are available to the citizens and other to the persons---Concept of person is wider than that of citizen---Any corporation or company incorporated under laws or even a statutory body is a legal person but might not be a citizen as defined in Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951---Respondent company sought minutes of the meeting with respect to license awarded to a third party---Protection under S. 7 of Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, was afforded to minutes of meeting of any public body subject to a final decision in the matter---Petitioner/Authority could hand over final decision of the public body to respondent company as the decision was not protected unlike protection afforded to defence contracts and similar matters---High Court modified the order passed by Pakistan Information Commission---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Sadiq PLD 2007 SC 133; Messrs Al-Raham Travels and Tours (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, Hajj; Zakat and Ushr 2011 SCMR 1621; State Trading Corporation of India Limited v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Vishakapatnam AIR 1963 SC 1811; Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. v. State of Bihar and others AIR 1965 SC 40; Jaipur Udhyog Limited v. Union of India AIR 1969 Raj. 281; Pakcom Limited and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2011 SC 44; D.G Khan Cement Company and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2013 Lah. 693; Messrs Riaz Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. LESCO 2010 PTD 1295; Pakistan Petroleum Limited v. Director General Mines and Minerals and Manpower Building PLD 2011 Quetta 1; Messrs Murree Brewery Company Limited v. Director General, Excise and Taxation 1991 MLD 267; Rustam Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India 1970) 1 SCC 248; Chiranjilal Chaudhari v. Union of India [1951] 21 Comp. Cas. 33; D.G. & G.M. v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 937; First National Bank of Boston v. Francis X Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts 435 U.S. 765; Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310; Dr. Naresh Agarwal v. Union of India and others (2005) (4) AWC 3745; Bennet Coleman Co. v. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 106; Mirza Shaukat Baig v. Shahid Jamil PLD 2005 SC 530; Combined Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Wali Bhai PLD 2016 SC 730; Haroon ur Rasheed v. LDA 2016 SCMR 931 and Waqar Zafar Bakhtawari v. Haji Mazhar Hussain Shah PLD 2018 SC 81 rel.
Muhammad Afzal Khan along with Syeda Itrat Batool, Law Officer, PTA for Petitioner.
Ms. Zainab Janjua, Azmat Bashir Tarar, Assistant Attorney General and Sardar Shabbir Hussain for Respondents.
