2015 (3) TMI 987 - HC - Indian Laws

Denial of information which was earlier directed to be supplied to the petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - CIC would have the power to enquire into any complaint in respect of matters relating to access of information under the RTI Act. However, it is apparent, in the present, case that respondent no.1 has acted without authority of law in nullifying orders passed under the RTI Act; thus, interference with the impugned order is warranted in these proceedings. - by virtue of Section 4(1)(b)(xvi) of the RTI Act, the public authority is required to publish the name, designation and particulars of public information officers. Admittedly, the name and designation of respondent no.2 and no other, was published as the CPIO in relation to the Principal Bench of the Income Tax Settlement Commission. In the circumstances, the petitioner has alleged that, in fact, respondent no.2 and respondent no.4 were the respective CPIO and the First Appellate Authority of the concerned public authority. - Although the allegations made by the petitioner may warrant an enquiry, I am not inclined to examine the same in these proceedings and it would be open for the petitioner to approach the CIC under Section 18 of the RTI Act in respect of these allegations. The CIC has the necessary power to initiate an enquiry in respect of such complaints by virtue of Section 18(2) of the RTI Act. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning an order denying information under the RTI Act - Administrative declaration of orders as void ab-initio - Authority to nullify orders through administrative order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order denying information under the RTI Act issued by the Central Public Information Officer & Administrative Officer of the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The impugned order nullified previous orders passed by other officers, raising the issue of whether an administrative head could declare orders void ab-initio.

2. The key facts included the petitioner's RTI application, responses from different officers, and subsequent administrative orders annulling the earlier decisions. The petitioner argued that administrative orders cannot override statutory powers exercised under the RTI Act, emphasizing the need for proper appeal procedures.

3. The court referenced the principle that higher authorities cannot interfere with the independence of statutory schemes, citing the Supreme Court's stance on maintaining the hierarchy of forums for adjudication. It highlighted that even if an order is a nullity, it remains effective until set aside by a competent body or court.

4. The judgment emphasized that the administrative head lacked the authority to interfere with orders passed under the RTI Act, stressing the importance of seeking relief through the correct legal channels. It also noted the requirement for public authorities to publish details of public information officers as per the RTI Act.

5. While acknowledging the petitioner's allegations of administrative misconduct, the court refrained from delving into those issues, suggesting that the petitioner approach the Central Information Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act for redressal. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the respondents to challenge the earlier orders through proper legal avenues.