Delhi High Court
National Human Rights Commission vs Central Information Commission & ... on 12 September, 2017
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 349/2015 & CM Appln. No.554/2015
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shobha and Ms. Joyshree
Barman, Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Feblin Mathew, Advocate for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 12.09.2017
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner (hereafter „the NHRC‟) has filed the present petition,
inter alia, impugning the order dated 04.12.2014 (hereafter 'the impugned
order') passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC).
2. By the impugned order, the CIC had disposed of the second appeal
preferred by respondent no.2 under section 19(3) of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (hereafter „the Act‟) by directing the NHRC to provide a complete
and categorical information to respondent no.2, as requested in his
application filed under the Act.
3. Respondent No.2 had filed an application dated 28.02.2011, inter alia,
seeking the following information:
"1. Photostat copies on the detail status on the
action of NHRC, New Delhi, on the File No.
197/18/5/2011, may kindly be furnished.
2. Photostat copies on the detail status on the
action of NHRC, New Delhi, on the File
No.64/18/5/2011, may kindly be furnished.
3. Photostat copies on the detail status on the
action on Lr. Dtd.9.2.2011 of the undersigned (P/c
End.) by the concerned authority on or after
receiving of the said Ltr. Dtd.9.2.2011; vide; File
No. 64/18/5/2011, may kindly be furnished."
4. In response to the aforesaid application, the Public Information
Officer (PIO) of the NHRC sent a letter dated 14.03.2011, forwarding a
note, inter alia, stating as under:
"2. In this context, it is to inform that Case No.
197/18/5/2011 was registered on complaint dated
20/01/2011 received through Sh. Siba Sankar Patro,
Human Rights Defender in respect of Sushant Kumar
Sahu & Trinath Sahu. The Commission after
considering the matter on 17/02/2011 and directed to
transmit the complaint to the concerned authority for
such action as deemed appropriate. Accordingly
complaint was transmitted to The Secretary, Ministry
of Finance, Insurance Division, Govt, of India, North
Block, New Delhi vide Commission's letter dated
18/02/2011 (Copy enclosed) and the
complainant/applicant was also informed accordingly.
As regard Case No. 64/18/5/2011 is concerned , it is to
inform that the same was registered on the complaint
of the applicant dated 29/12/2010 regarding inaction by
SP, Berhampur Police, Orissa. The Commission after
considering the matter on 12/01/2011 and directed to
transmit the complaint to the concerned authority for
such action as deemed appropriate Accordingly
complaint was transmitted to The Director General Of
Police, Govt, of Orissa, Bhubaneshwar vide
Commission's letter dated 15/01/2011 (Copy enclosed)
and the complainant/applicant was also informed
accordingly.
Since the complaints were transmitted to the concerned
authorities for taking further action in the matter, no
other report/information is available with the
Commission."
5. It is apparent from the above that the NHRC had unequivocally
communicated to respondent No.2 that it had not acted on his complaints,
but had forwarded the same to the concerned authorities - Ministry of
Finance and the DG, Beharampur, Orissa.
6. Respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority
(hereafter 'FAA') on 21.03.2011, however, that was also not successful and,
was disposed of by an order dated 05.05.2011, passed by the FAA.
Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 preferred a second appeal before
the CIC.
7. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that the CIC
proceeded on completely erroneous premise that the respondent‟s RTI
application was transmitted to the Finance Ministry and DG, Beharampur
Police, Orissa, and, NHRC had not provided information as sought for by
the respondent no.2. The examination of the facts and record indicates to
the contrary.
8. The information sought by respondent no.2 was with regard to the
action taken by NHRC in respect of his complaints. Undisputedly, the only
action taken by NHRC was to forward the complaints to the concerned
authorities (Finance Ministry and DG, Beharampur Police, Orissa). The
letters, under the cover of which the said complaints were forwarded to the
authorities, were also marked to the respondent. Thus, respondent was fully
aware as to how his complaints had been dealt with by NHRC. In the event
the respondent required any further information as to how the said
complaints had been dealt with by the concerned authorities, the apposite
course would have been for the respondent is to approach the concerned
authorities under the Act.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned order is set aside with liberty to the respondent No.2 to approach
the concerned authorities under the Act.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
dr
