AIRLINK 173.79 Increased By ▲ 3.22 (1.89%)
BOP 11.36 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (1.61%)
CNERGY 8.64 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (2.73%)
CPHL 101.64 Increased By ▲ 1.91 (1.92%)
FCCL 46.94 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (0.73%)
FFL 15.39 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (1.58%)
FLYNG 27.79 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (0.87%)
HUBC 143.75 Increased By ▲ 5.97 (4.33%)
HUMNL 12.99 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.54%)
KEL 4.52 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.44%)
KOSM 5.76 Increased By ▲ 0.40 (7.46%)
MLCF 62.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.11%)
OGDC 212.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-0.07%)
PACE 5.47 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.92%)
PAEL 47.07 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-0.23%)
PIAHCLA 18.08 Decreased By ▼ -0.40 (-2.16%)
PIBTL 10.86 Increased By ▲ 0.50 (4.83%)
POWER 12.26 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.57%)
PPL 171.28 Increased By ▲ 1.68 (0.99%)
PRL 35.88 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.08%)
PTC 23.36 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (1.17%)
SEARL 96.96 Increased By ▲ 0.70 (0.73%)
SSGC 41.71 Increased By ▲ 2.19 (5.54%)
SYM 14.15 Increased By ▲ 0.31 (2.24%)
TELE 7.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.7%)
TPLP 9.96 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.7%)
TRG 63.89 Increased By ▲ 0.41 (0.65%)
WAVESAPP 10.02 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.3%)
WTL 1.33 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (1.53%)
YOUW 3.72 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (1.64%)
BR100 12,447 Increased By 142.3 (1.16%)
BR30 37,919 Increased By 504.1 (1.35%)
KSE100 116,390 Increased By 1536.7 (1.34%)
KSE30 35,696 Increased By 479.1 (1.36%)
Pakistan Print 2024-06-02

LHC says access to public record can’t be denied

  • The Court observes Board of Revenue (BoR) Punjab has no lawful authority to permanently seal, change, or alter the nature and character of public records
Published June 2, 2024

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) held that access to the public record by way of inspection and the right to obtain certified copies cannot be clogged, curtailed, or prohibited by any functionary of a public body.

The court observed that the Board of Revenue (BoR) Punjab has no lawful authority to permanently seal, change, or alter the nature and character of public records including RL-II registers, or out rightly refuse, deny the right to inspect or obtain certified copies thereof applied by any person under law.

The court passed this order in a petition from Syed Zawar Raza who approached the court against the decision (BoR) Punjab which refused to issue copies of RL-II registers.

The court allowing the petition directed the BoR to issue certified copies of RL-II registers to the petitioner.

The court observed that Article 87 of the Constitution mandates that every public officer having custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fee.

The court said such document or part thereof as the case may be should be issued with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy.

The court observed such certificate shall be sealed and be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title.

The court said the certified copies of public records can also be obtained under the provisions of the Punjab Copying Fees Act, 1936.

The court observed that the objection of the respondents that the petitioner has no locus standi to institute this petition is without any basis as any person can apply for a certified copy of the public record and such a person cannot be deprived of his legal and constitutional right.

The court observed that the BoR may adopt a suitable mechanism and means to de-seal, secure, and preserve RL-II Registers in the present form manually or by digitalising such records.

The court said the BoR may also prescribe a reasonable mechanism for inspection and issuance of certified copies thereof but cannot out rightly deny or refuse the same.

The court observed the contention that the entire sealed RL-II Register can be produced before a court of law in original is grossly misconceived since a person may be required to inspect and obtain a certified copy thereof who has no nexus with a pending proceeding in a court of law.

The court held that interpretation of laws is the sole prerogative of the superior courts which does not fall in the domain of the executive.

Hence, the respondents or the BoR grossly fell in error by inferring on their own by interpreting the Repeal Act that they are no longer obliged or under a legal duty to issue certified copies of RL-II registers, the court added.

The court said there is no provision in the Repeal Act that in any manner changes, alters, or disregards the nature or character of public records including RL-II registers. In addition, it also does not empower or mandate the government or the BoR Punjab to disregard the sanctity of such public records or affect the right to inspect and take certified copies of such public records, the court concluded.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.