2016 (11) TMI 682 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking of information - Right to Information Act - Held that - gross injustice has been caused to the petitioner by virtue of the impugned order. There was no response from the respondents regarding the information supplied to the petitioner or atleast the order does not mention so. The information sought by the petitioner when examined in the light of Annexure P5, the response given to him in the first instance is much short of the information sought by the petitioner. Evidently, the State Information Commissioner failed to apply her mind to the facts of the case and passed an order which can be termed to be cryptic, non speaking and thus, unsustainable in law - The impugned order set aside and the petition is disposed off - matter remanded back to the State Information Commissioner, Punjab to look into the entire issue and ensure that the grievance of the petitioner is redressed.

Issues:
1. Right to Information Act - Information sought by petitioner
2. Appeal process and disposal of complaint
3. Injustice caused to petitioner by impugned order
4. Failure of State Information Commissioner to apply mind to the case
5. Setting aside of impugned order and remand to Commissioner

Analysis:

1. Right to Information Act - Information sought by petitioner: The petitioner had sought specific information under the Right to Information Act related to an appointment order and details regarding handicapped quota. The response received by the petitioner was found to be insufficient and did not address the information sought adequately. The Court noted that the response provided was lacking in detail and did not fulfill the petitioner's request as per Annexure P5.

2. Appeal process and disposal of complaint: Following the unsatisfactory response, the petitioner filed an appeal, but the matter was disposed of without proper consideration. The State Information Commissioner passed a brief order stating that the information had been supplied to the petitioner, without addressing the inadequacy of the response or the petitioner's grievance effectively. This disposal of the complaint without proper examination was deemed unjust by the Court.

3. Injustice caused to petitioner by impugned order: The Court acknowledged that the impugned order had caused gross injustice to the petitioner. The lack of response from the respondents and the insufficient information provided in Annexure P5 highlighted the unfair treatment faced by the petitioner in obtaining the requested information. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing grievances effectively and providing complete information as per the RTI Act requirements.

4. Failure of State Information Commissioner to apply mind to the case: It was observed that the State Information Commissioner failed to apply her mind to the facts of the case while disposing of the complaint. The order passed was considered cryptic, non-speaking, and unsustainable in law. The Court pointed out the necessity for a thorough examination of the issues raised by the petitioner and the importance of providing a reasoned decision in such matters.

5. Setting aside of impugned order and remand to Commissioner: In light of the inadequacies and injustices identified in the handling of the petitioner's request, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the State Information Commissioner. The Commissioner was directed to re-examine the issue comprehensively and ensure that the petitioner's grievance is appropriately addressed. A timeline of six weeks was provided for the Commissioner to take necessary actions upon receipt of the Court's order.

← Previous Next →