2014 (3) TMI 369 - HC - Indian Laws

Power of CIC or SIC - Levy of penalty on CPIO under Section 20 of RTI Act and and action ction against the CPIO u/s 18 of RTI Act - The scope of the powers of the Commission under Section 18 of the Act - Held that - while considering a complaint made under Section 18 of the Act, the Commission cannot direct the concerned CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought from him. Such a power can only be exercised when a Second Appeal in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 19 is preferred before the Commissioner. As noted earlier, in his complaint, the complainant had specifically referred to the above referred order of the Apex Court 2013 (3) TMI 378 - SUPREME COURT and had also drawn the attention of the Commission to the legal proposition, as enunciated in the above referred decision. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Commission either did not at all advert to the above referred decision or for the reasons which cannot be gathered from the order, it decided not to refer to the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the Central Information Commission is hereby set aside and the Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint of the petitioner within four months from today, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act. It is expected that the Commission henceforth will decide the complaints on merits instead of directing the CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought. Of course, it would be open to the Commission to give such a direction while entertaining a second appeal under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act. - Decided in favor of petitioner.

Issues:
- Complaint under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act seeking penalty against CPIO for failure to provide information
- Scope of powers of the Central Information Commission under Section 18
- Analysis of the judgment in Central Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur
- Different procedures and remedies under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act
- Commission's authority to direct CPIO to provide information in complaints under Section 18
- Setting aside of the impugned order and directions for disposal of the complaint

Issue 1: Complaint under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act seeking penalty against CPIO for failure to provide information

The petitioner filed a complaint before the Central Information Commission under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, seeking penalty against the CPIO of Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for failing to provide the requested information. The complaint highlighted the distinction between Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, emphasizing that the Commission does not have the authority to direct the provision of information in complaints under Section 18.

Issue 2: Scope of powers of the Central Information Commission under Section 18

Section 18 of the Act mandates the Commission to receive and inquire into complaints from individuals who have been denied access to requested information or have not received a response within specified time limits. The Commission is obligated to decide such complaints on merit rather than directing the CPIO to provide the sought information. It can impose penalties and recommend disciplinary actions against the CPIO if necessary.

Issue 3: Analysis of the judgment in Central Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur

The judgment in Central Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur clarified that the powers under Section 18 of the Act are distinct from those under Section 19. The Supreme Court held that the Commission cannot direct the furnishing of information under Section 18 but can only impose penalties after establishing the CPIO's conduct was not bona fide. The judgment emphasized the different procedures and safeguards provided under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act.

Issue 4: Different procedures and remedies under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act

Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve different purposes and provide distinct procedures and remedies. The judgment highlighted that Section 19 offers more safeguards for individuals denied access to information, shifting the burden of justification to the information officer. The procedures under Section 19 are time-bound and more beneficial to individuals seeking information compared to Section 18.

Issue 5: Commission's authority to direct CPIO to provide information in complaints under Section 18

The judgment reiterated that the Commission cannot direct the concerned CPIO to provide information in complaints made under Section 18 of the Act. Such a power is reserved for cases where a Second Appeal under Section 19 is preferred before the Commissioner. The Commission must decide complaints on merits rather than issuing directives for information provision.

Issue 6: Setting aside of the impugned order and directions for disposal of the complaint

The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Central Information Commission and directed the Commission to dispose of the petitioner's complaint within four months, following the prescribed procedure under the Act. The Court emphasized that the Commission should decide complaints on merits instead of directing the CPIO to provide information, except in cases of entertaining a second appeal under Section 19.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the legal issues involved and the Court's interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act.

← Previous Next →