2012 (10) TMI 258 - HC - Indian Laws

RTI Single Judge of this Court rejected the Writ Petition on the ground that the appellant is entitled to file an Appeal under the Right to Information Act to the Appellate Authority viz., the State Chief Information Commissioner - alleged that the SPIO did not furnish the information as requested by the applicant. Hence, he filed a complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act to the SIC Held that - Complainant has not approached the First Appellate Authority designated under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act. The complaint was filed under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act before the SIC - Single Judge erred in rejecting the Writ Petition on the ground that as against the order of the SIC, Appeal lies under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act - Appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) regarding the filing of appeals against orders made by the State Information Commissioner (SIC).
2. Determination of the correct appellate authority under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act in cases where the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) fails to provide information as requested.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the order rejecting the Writ Petition, arguing that there is no provision in the RTI Act for filing an appeal against the SIC's decision. The respondent contended that there is no provision for appealing against the SPIO's order before the State Chief Information Commissioner. The central question was whether an appeal lies under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act against the SIC's order. The court held that the appeal does not lie against the SIC's decision, contrary to the learned Single Judge's ruling.

Issue 2:
The court delved into the provisions of the RTI Act to clarify the roles of the SPIO and the Appellate Authority. It highlighted that every public authority must designate SPIOs within a specified period to handle information requests. The SPIO is required to provide information or reject requests within thirty days, failing which it is deemed as a refusal. The Appellate Authority, superior to the SPIO, is appointed by public authorities under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act. The court referred to a notification specifying the SPIO and First Appellate Authority for different public authorities. In this case, the complainant did not approach the designated First Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) but filed a complaint before the SIC under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act. Consequently, the court found the rejection of the Writ Petition by the Single Judge erroneous and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.

The judgment clarified the appellate process under the RTI Act, emphasizing the distinct roles of the SPIO and the Appellate Authority. It also highlighted the consequences of non-compliance by the SPIO and the powers of the SIC to impose penalties. The court's decision provided clarity on the correct forum for appeals in cases involving the failure of the SPIO to provide requested information, ensuring adherence to the statutory framework of the RTI Act.