AGL 40.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-0.4%)
AIRLINK 129.53 Decreased By ▼ -2.20 (-1.67%)
BOP 6.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.15%)
CNERGY 4.63 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (3.58%)
DCL 8.94 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.36%)
DFML 41.69 Increased By ▲ 1.08 (2.66%)
DGKC 83.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.31 (-0.37%)
FCCL 32.77 Increased By ▲ 0.43 (1.33%)
FFBL 75.47 Increased By ▲ 6.86 (10%)
FFL 11.47 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.06%)
HUBC 110.55 Decreased By ▼ -1.21 (-1.08%)
HUMNL 14.56 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (1.75%)
KEL 5.39 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (3.26%)
KOSM 8.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.58 (-6.46%)
MLCF 39.79 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (0.91%)
NBP 60.29 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
OGDC 199.66 Increased By ▲ 4.72 (2.42%)
PAEL 26.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.15%)
PIBTL 7.66 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (2.41%)
PPL 157.92 Increased By ▲ 2.15 (1.38%)
PRL 26.73 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.19%)
PTC 18.46 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (0.87%)
SEARL 82.44 Decreased By ▼ -0.58 (-0.7%)
TELE 8.31 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.97%)
TOMCL 34.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.12%)
TPLP 9.06 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (2.84%)
TREET 17.47 Increased By ▲ 0.77 (4.61%)
TRG 61.32 Decreased By ▼ -1.13 (-1.81%)
UNITY 27.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.04%)
WTL 1.38 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (7.81%)
BR100 10,407 Increased By 220 (2.16%)
BR30 31,713 Increased By 377.1 (1.2%)
KSE100 97,328 Increased By 1781.9 (1.86%)
KSE30 30,192 Increased By 614.4 (2.08%)
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.