9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order. The impugned order passed by the Central Information Commission is hereby set aside and the Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint of the petitioner within four months from today, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act. It is expected that the Commission henceforth will decide the complaints on merits instead of directing the CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought. Of course, it would be open to the Commission to give such a direction while entertaining a second appeal under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act. - Decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P. (C) No. 6755 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 28-10-2013 - V.K. Jain, J. Shri J.K. Mittal with Varun Gaba, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with Naresh Kumar, Dy. Registrar, CESTAT, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The petitioner before this Court filed an application dated 4th February, 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) seeking certain information. Alleging that the CPIO had failed to provide information sought in terms of the aforesaid applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting the CPIO to provide information which the complainant had sought. If the Commission finds that the CPIO had without reasonable cause refused to receive an application for information or had not furnished information within the prescribed time or had given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, it is required to impose prescribed penalty upon such a CPIO/SPIO, as the case may be. In the cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the Commission is also required to recommend disciplinary action against the concerned CPIO or SPIO, under the service rules applicable to him. Section 19 of the Act, on the other hand, provides for a first appeal to the First Appellate Authority under sub-section (1) and a Second Appeal to the Commission under sub-section (3) of the aforesaid Section. Sub-section (8) of the aforesaid Act deals with the power of the Commission with respect to the appeals preferred in terms of sub-section (3) of the said Section and reads as under :- 8. In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to,- (a) require the public authority to take any such steps as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmation Commissioner preferred an appeal by Special Leave. Rejecting the appeal filed by the Commissioner, the Apex Court, inter alia, held as under :- ...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant. 29. If we look at Section 18 of the Act it appears that the powers under Section 18 have been categorized under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1). Under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1) of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may receive and inquire into complaint of any person who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion may be made to the decision of this Court in Aswini Kumar Ghose and Anr. v. Arabinda Bose and Anr. - AIR 1952 SC 369. At page 377 of the report Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri had laid down : It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 42. Apart from that the procedure under Section 19 of the Act, when compared to Section 18, has several safeguards for protecting the interest of the person who has been refused the information he has sought. Section 19(5), in this connection, may be referred to. Section 19(5) puts the onus to justify the denial of request on the information officer. Therefore, it is for the officer to justify the denial. There is no such safeguard in Section 18. Apart from that the procedure under Section 19 is a time bound one but no limit is prescribed under Section 18. So out of the two procedures, between Section 18 and Section 19, the one under Section 19 is more beneficial to a person who has been denied access to information. 5. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
