Calcutta High Court
Subrata Goswami vs The State Chief Information ... on 22 August, 2023
OD 3
WPO/1512/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
SUBRATA GOSWAMI
VS
THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
WEST BENGAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Date: 2Second August, 2023.
Appearance:
Mr. Pratyush Patwari, Adv.
. . .for the petitioner.
Mr. Raja Saha, Adv.
Ms. Arpita Saha, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee, Adv.
. . .for the State Information Commission
The Court: Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's
second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is
pending for more than one month above the time limit of 45 days after preferring
the same. By citing two judgments of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, learned
counsel for the petitioner argues that the reasonable time limit for deciding the
Second Appeal should also be construed to be 45 days.
2
It is argued that the petitioner is a septuagenarian retired person and as
such, is suffering unnecessary for the delay caused by the Second Appellate
Authority in deciding the issue.
Learned counsel for the Second Appellate Authority submits that the ratio
sought to be relied on by the petitioner is contrary to the statute. It is submitted
that the silence in the statute regarding in the time limit for deciding Second
Appeals is deliberate and justified, since, whereas the SPIO and the First
Appellate Authority deal only with information regarding a particular department
or branch, the Second Appellate Authority deals with appeals from the entire
State and, as such, has to process numerous bulk of applications as compared to
the other two authorities.
That apart, it is argued that the Second Appellate Authority was without
any Chief Information Commissioner for a considerable period of about one year,
for which there is a huge backlog already in place. However, the Second
Appellate Authority is trying its best to resolve the pending appeals serially, as
early as possible.
It is further contended that the Second Appellate Authority is short of man
power and, as such, ought not to be directed to dispose of any Second Appeal
within very short period, unless there is some special circumstance to justify it.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the
petitioner is that the First Appellate Authority did not advert to the specific
provisions of the statute or the facts of the case. As such, the petitioner seeks to
redress such grievance before the Second Appellate Authority itself as provided in
Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The language of the said
3
sub-Section is, in the interpretation of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the
Second Appeal lies within 90 days "from the date on which the decision should
have been made" or was actually received. Hence, in situations as the present
one, where the First Appellate Authority failed to decide the issues in time,
furnishes sufficient ground for the petitioner to ask the Second Appellate
Authority to pass an order on merits against the order of the SPIO.
Be that as it may, although there may be some justification in the
argument of the petitioner on the question of thete being no statutory period for
disposing of the Second Appeal, which might be justified in view of the nature of
function undertaken by the Second Appellate Authority, the jurisdiction of which
is spread over the entire State, as opposed to the first two authorities, since the
petitioner in the present case is around 70 years of age and is a retired person, it
is expected that the Second Appeal pending at the behest of the petitioner be
decided expeditiously.
Hence, even without going into the question as to what would be a
reasonable period for disposal of the Second Appeal in the facts and
circumstances of the case and the inconvenience cited by the respondent
authorities, the Second Appellate Authority ought to be directed to decide the
Second Appeal of the petitioner within a short period on the ground of the age
and circumstances of the petitioner.
Accordingly, WPO 1512 of 2023 is disposed of by directing the respondent,
that is the State Chief Information Commissioner, West Bengal Information
Commission, to dispose of the second appeal pending at the behest of the
petitioner under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as
expeditiously as possible, positively within two months from date, in accordance
with law.
No order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be made available
to the parties subject to compliance with the requisite formalities.
(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
sp/
