Whether PIO can file a Writ against order of the appellate authority – CIC:
The petitioner is the Public Information Officer, Syndicate Bank Regional Office at Mugulrajapuram, Vijayawada, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’).
The AP High Court held:
This court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition, filed by the Public Information Officer, is not maintainable because even though he is an employee, he is designated as Public Information Officer, who is charged with the duty of dealing with the requests of persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to such persons. U/s. 7 of the Act, the Public Information Officer shall dispose of the requests received by him either by providing information on payment of the prescribed fee or by rejecting the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9 of the Act. A person, who does not receive a decision within the time specified under sub-section 1 of section 7 of the Act or is aggrieved by the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, is entitled to file an appeal to such Officer, who is senior in rank of the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer. A second appeal against such decision shall lie to the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission as the case may be.
The scheme of the Act, discussed above would reveal that every Public Information Officer nominated as such under the Act has a dual role to play viz. as an officer of the Public Authority and also the Public Information Officer. While such Officer is loyal to his employer while acting in his role as the Officer, he acts as a quasijudicial authority while disposing of the request made for furnishing information. His orders are subject to further appeals. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Public Information Officer cannot don the role of the Officer of the Public Authority in relation to the orders passed by the appellate authorities against the orders passed by him. If his order is reversed by the appellate authority, he cannot be treated as aggrieved party giving rise to a cause of action for him to question such Orders. It is only either the public authority, against whom the directions are given, or any other party, who feels aggrieved by such directions, that can question the orders passed by the appellate authorities. As such, the Public Information Officer, who filed this Writ Petition, is wholly incompetent to question the order of the appellate authority and the Writ Petition filed by him is not maintainable.
Even on merits, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the information sought for by respondent No. 2 does not fall within the exempted category u/s. 8 (1) (h) of the Act because that information, which respondent No. 2 has sought, relates to pending proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, what is exempted u/s. 8 (1) (h) is information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of respondent of offenders. It is not the pleaded case of the Bank that any investigation or apprehension or prosecution of respondent No. 2 will be impeded by furnishing information sought for by him. Even if the information relates to a pending dispute before a Court or Tribunal, that would not fall u/s. 8 (1) (h) of the Act.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
[PIO, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Mugulrajapuram, Vijaywada vs. Central Information Commission: Writ Petition No. 28785 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Sri Justice C V. Nagarjuna Reddy]
