Delhi High Court
High Court Of Delhi Through ... vs Rk Jain And Anr on 16 August, 2018
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 981/2017 & CM No. 4497/2017
HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH
REGISTRAR GENERAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr Jayant K. Mehta, Ms Suveni Bhagat,
Mr Rahul Kukreti, Advocates.
versus
RK JAIN AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr Rajveer Singh, Mr Sameer Gupta,
Advocates for R1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 16.08.2018
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated
16.08.2016 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter
'CIC'), whereby the CIC has directed the petitioner to make available all
orders passed by the First Appellate Authorities under Section 19 (1) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter 'the RTI Act') as well as all
replies furnished under the Right to Information Act in response to
applications under the said Act, on its website within a defined time frame.
2. This Court has reservations as to whether such information was liable
for disclosure under the RTI Act. However, without going into the said
issue, it is apparent that the impugned order is not sustainable as there was
no appeal pending before the CIC with respect to which any direction for
disclosure of information could be granted.
3. Respondent no.1 had filed an application dated 04.03.2015 with the
petitioner seeking the following information :-
"(A) Please provide copies of all First Appellate
Authority's orders of Delhi H.C. under RTI passed from 1-
10-2014 till date of providing the information in digital
form on GD, for which applicant i.s. ready to pay
prescribed fee of Rs.: per CD."
4. The petitioner has responded to the aforesaid request on 27.03.2015
by stating as under :
"the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority are not
available in hard copy and presently not available in
digitized form, nor uploaded on the website of this Court.
If you want hard copies of the same for the desired period,
the same can be furnished or you may inspect the same on
any working day after taking prior appointment from the
Registrar (Establishment)/First Appellate Authority, Room
No. 101, First Floor, Administrative Block, Delhi High
Court, New Delhi."
5. Respondent no.1 did not prefer any appeal against the said order; he
filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the CIC instead.
The CIC is the Authority constituted under Section 12 of the RTI Act and is
required to perform the functions as specified under the RTI Act. In terms of
Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act, the CIC has the jurisdiction to entertain a
second appeal against an order passed by the First Appellate Authority. A
plain reading of Section 19 of the RTI Act indicates that the CIC has no
jurisdiction to entertain any appeal directly from the order passed by the
CPIO/PIO. It is also well settled that while examining the complaint under
Section 18 of the RTI Act, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of
any information. This has been authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court
in Chief Information Commissioner And Another v. State of Manipur and
Anr. : (2011) 15 SCC 1. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down
below:-
"27. 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.
28. 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
[Section 18(1)(b)] or has been given incomplete, misleading or
false information under the Act [Section 18(1)(e)] or has not
been given a response to a request for information or access to
information within time limits specified under the Act [Section
18(1)(c)]. We are not concerned with provision of Section
18(1)(a) or 18(1)(d) of the Act. Here we are concerned with
the residuary provision under Section 18(1)(f) of the Act.
30. Under Section 18(3) of the Act the Central Information
Commission or State Information Commission, as the case
may be, while inquiring into any matter in this Section has the
same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit in
respect of certain matters specified in Section 18(3)(a) to (f).
Under Section 18(4) which is a non-obstante clause, the
Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be, may examine any record to
which the Act applies and which is under the control of the
public authority and such records cannot be withheld from it
on any ground.
31. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that
under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information
Commission or the State Information Commission has no
power to provide access to the information which has been
requested for by any person but which has been denied to him.
The only order which can be passed by the Central
Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order
of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such
order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the
conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
32. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in
the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been
held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint
under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an
order providing for access to the information."
6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. It is clarified
that this would not preclude respondent no.1 from availing of such remedies
as available in law.
7. The petition and the pending application are disposed of in the above
terms.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
AUGUST 16, 2018
pkv
