2019 (12) TMI 631 - HC - Indian Laws

Right to information - Information sought with regard to one Sri.Srinivas, Inspector of Customs - petitioner submitted that in respect of the very same officer Sri.Srinivas, an order was passed by the Central Information Commission dated 25.9.2017 and therefore, it is evident that the information which was supplied to the petitioner that no such officer exists is incorrect and misleading - HELD THAT - The information which has been supplied to the petitioner prima facie appears to be incorrect and misleading. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Central Information Commission while passing the impugned order dated 23.1.2018. The complaint submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the complainant could not substantiate his claims regarding malafide denial of information by the respondent. The impugned order therefore suffers from the voice of information, application of mind and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The Central Information Commission is directed to decide the issue, whether or not, the application of the petitioner is incorrect/misleading, in the light of order dated 25.9.2017 passed by the Central Information Commission, by a speaking order - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of respondent No.1's name from the cause title.
2. Alleged incorrect and misleading information provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Rejection of the complaint by the Central Information Commission.
4. Judicial review of the impugned order by the High Court.

Deletion of Respondent No.1's Name:
The counsel for respondent No.1 sought the deletion of their name based on legal precedent. The High Court permitted the deletion of respondent No.1's name from the cause title, in accordance with the request.

Alleged Incorrect Information under the Right to Information Act:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking details about a specific individual. The Central Public Information Officer initially responded that no such person existed. The petitioner then complained to the Central Information Commission, alleging incorrect and misleading information. The High Court noted that a previous order by the Commission indicated the information supplied to the petitioner was potentially incorrect and misleading. The impugned order was criticized for lacking proper consideration of this aspect, leading to a flawed decision. The High Court found merit in the petitioner's claim and quashed the impugned order. The Central Information Commission was directed to re-examine the issue based on the previous order and provide a detailed decision within a month.

Rejection of Complaint by the Central Information Commission:
The Central Information Commission had rejected the petitioner's complaint, citing failure to substantiate claims of malafide denial of information by the respondent. The High Court, after reviewing the case, found that the impugned order lacked proper consideration, application of mind, and was arbitrary. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Commission to reconsider the matter with due diligence.

Judicial Review by the High Court:
The High Court conducted a thorough review of the case, considering arguments from both parties. It observed that the impugned order suffered from deficiencies and did not adequately address the issue of incorrect and misleading information provided to the petitioner. The High Court, while not expressing an opinion on the case's merits, set aside the impugned order and instructed the Central Information Commission to reevaluate the matter, ensuring a fair hearing and a reasoned decision within a specified timeframe. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.