9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 264 - HC - Indian LawsLevy of penalty under RTI Act for default in supply of information - Seeking of Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 - CPIO came to the conclusion that it was not practicable to provide the information and denied the same - Held that - Section 19(1) makes a provision for filing of an appeal if a person is aggrieved by a decision or inaction of the CPIO. The Appellate Authority in sub-section (1) of Section 19 is classified as an officer senior in rank to the CPIO meaning thereby that under the scheme of RTI Act, the CPIO is a different authority or officer different from an Appellate Authority to whom an appeal lies under sub-Section (1) of Section 19. If the legislative intent, as can be made out on a combined reading of various provisions are taken note of, it would be seen that the legislature only proposes for taking action against CPIO, and not against any other authority like the Appellate Authority or officer to whom the appeal lies. The CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, there are no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding disciplinary action against the first Appellate Authority. 2. Whether the first Appellate Authority can be considered a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) under the RTI Act. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed challenging a writ court's decision dismissing a petition related to a Right to Information Act (RTI) application. The appellant sought information under the RTI Act, and after several appeals, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the furnishing of information and recommended disciplinary action against the Appellate Authority. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, specifically regarding the authority against whom disciplinary action can be recommended. The writ court found that the Appellate Authority cannot be proceeded against under Section 20(2) as it only deals with the CPIO. The appellant argued that the Appellate Authority should be considered a CPIO, but the legislative intent and the scheme of the RTI Act indicated otherwise. 2. The crux of the matter was whether the first Appellate Authority could be equated with a CPIO under the RTI Act. The appellant contended that since an appeal under Section 19(1) lies to an officer senior in rank to the CPIO, the Appellate Authority should also be considered a CPIO. However, the Union of India argued that the CPIO is specifically defined in the Act as the custodian of information responsible for its supply, and the Appellate Authority's role is different. The court analyzed the legislative intent behind Sections 19 and 20 of the RTI Act, emphasizing that penal provisions are meant to be enforced only against the CPIO, not the Appellate Authority. The judgment highlighted that expanding the definition of CPIO to include the Appellate Authority would go against the legislative intent and the statutory provisions of the Act. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed based on the court's interpretation of the RTI Act, which clarified that the Appellate Authority cannot be equated with a CPIO for the purposes of disciplinary action under Section 20(2). The judgment emphasized the distinction between the roles of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority, ensuring that penal provisions are applicable only to the custodian of information, i.e., the CPIO.
|
