2013 (1) TMI 319 - HC - Indian Laws

RTI Act - information supplied by respondent Bank was misleading and wrong - Held that - The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished. Moreover, there is a categorical finding of the CIC, of the appellants misusing the RTI Act, as is also evident from the plethora of RTI applications filed by the appellants. Thus factual findings of the CIC that information in possession of the respondent Bank had already been provided and no opinion as sought in the application could be provided, which was not interfered by the Single Judge need not be interfere by us - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the dismissal of Writ Petition under RTI Act

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the dismissal of a Writ Petition (W.P.) filed by the appellants against the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal against the information provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the respondent Bank in response to an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI) in 2005.

The First Appellate Authority concluded that although the information was provided, the appellants claimed it was misleading and wrong. The CIC noted that the appellants had filed numerous RTI applications, with the grievance that misleading and vague information had been provided. The CIC found no reason to interfere with the decisions of the PIO and the First Appellate Authority.

The learned Single Judge also found that the information sought had already been provided, fulfilling the obligation of the respondent Bank under the RTI Act to provide available information. The appellants contended that the information given was incorrect, focusing on specific points in the RTI application where they claimed information was lacking or incorrect.

The proceedings under the RTI Act do not involve detailed adjudication of disputes, and the purpose is to enable effective pursuit of disputes. The RTI Act proceedings cannot be converted into dispute adjudication on the correctness of information provided. The CIC had made a factual finding of the appellants misusing the RTI Act, evident from the numerous applications filed. The Court declined to interfere with the order of the Single Judge based on these findings.

In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it without any order as to costs.