Section 19 (1) of the RTI ACT:
Vide an RTI application dated 15-05-2012 the appellant sought information on thirteen issues as contained in his RTI Application.
The first appeal was filed on 13-08-2012. As the desired information was not provided by the CPIO vide Order dated 14-08-2012, First Appellate Authority held that the Order of the CPIO is modification to this extent that the information pertaining to the undersigned is already available in public domain at SI. No. 183 of the Civil List, 2012.
Decision
It is to be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 15-05-2012, sought some information from the respondents on 13 issues. During the hearing of the appeal it was submitted by Sh. Harinder Dhingra, appellant that he had not been provided the required information on any issues of his RTI application dated 15- 05-2012. However, it was rebutted by the respondents by stating that the required information, as sought for, was provided to the appellant vide their letter dated 06-07- 2012. It was further submitted by the appellant that his First Appeal was decided by the same officer, in respect of whom, the information was sought and it is against the Law.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, First Appeal was filed by the appellant on 13-07-2012 before the FAA (Sh. Arun Kumar Addl, Commissioner (IGI) Airport, T-3 New Delhi 37), who vide his order dated 14-08-2012, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal was preferred before this Commission.
On careful perusal of the record, it was revealed that the appellant sought some information in respect of Sh. Arun Kumar, Addl. Commission (ING), who decided the First Appeal. It has also been corroborated by the Sh. Arun Kumar, Asstt. Commissioner & CPIO, Sh. Dalveer Solanki, Asstt. Commissioner & CPIO, present before the Commission for making the submissions on behalf of the respondents, in the case.
It is a well settled position in the eyes of Law that there should be no judge of his own cause. This is one of the principles of natural justice and no one should violate the same.
Even the Hon. Judges of the High Court & Supreme Court take care of this Rule while deciding the cases. In the present case, it is now admitted fact that the person against whom the information was sought became a First Appellate Authority and decided his own case i.e. as to whether information in respect of himself is to be provided or not to the appellant.
Thus, the First Appellate Authority (Sh. Arun Kumar) violated the principles of natural justice. It is immaterial whether he has decided the case rightly or wrongly.
In view of the above, the order passed by FAA is not legally tenable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, it is quashed accordingly. Thus, the case is remanded back to the respondents with a direction to put up the case to another FAA (to be nominated by the head of the department in case Sh. Arun Kumar is still acting as FAA ) for its disposal in accordance to the provisions of Law, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission.
(Harinder Dhingra vs. O/o the Addl. Commissioner of Custom, IGI Airport, Terminal 3, New Delhi, File No. CIC/ SS/A/2012/003238/KY decided on 02-04-2014. Citation: RTIR II (2014) 238 (CIC)
