2017 (11) TMI 2010 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of CIC conferred under the Right to Information Act, 2005 - HELD THAT - The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme. The impugned order passed by the CIC cannot be sustained - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Central Information Commission (CIC) under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Denial of information sought under the Act.
3. Observations and recommendations made by the CIC beyond its jurisdiction.
4. Non-responsive attitude of the Public Authority.
5. Compensation to the respondent for unsatisfactory response and costs.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order by the CIC, contending that the observations made were beyond the CIC's jurisdiction under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The CIC's decision-making powers are delineated by the Act, and it is not authorized to delve into disputes outside its scope.

2. The respondent sought information regarding plot allotments under the 20-Point Programme, which was not adequately provided by the Public Authority. The CIC observed procedural irregularities and directed necessary relief for the respondent, highlighting the non-responsive attitude of the authorities.

3. The CIC's order included recommendations for relief to the respondent, emphasizing the need for action by the Deputy Chief Minister to address irregularities in plot allotments. However, the High Court found that the CIC had overstepped its jurisdiction by examining matters beyond the Act's specified scope.

4. Despite acknowledging the unsustainability of the CIC's order, the Court directed the petitioner to pay costs to the respondent due to incomplete information provided and the need for a thorough inquiry into missing records. The Court emphasized the duty of the Public Authority to ensure complete responses to information requests.

5. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the CIC's order, while clarifying that it did not express an opinion on the petitioner's entitlement to the plot of land in question. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the Act's provisions and ensuring proper handling of information requests to avoid legal challenges.