Right of appeal Complaint u/s. 18(1) of the RTI Act :
In January 2015, in part A, I had referred to the Delhi High Court’s order and instead of analysing it, had reproduced an Analysis of that order by Mr. Venkatesh Nayak, Programme Co-coordinator of CHRI. Now I summarise the said HC’s order dated 05.12.2014.
The petitioner, R. K. Jain, inter alia, impugned an order dated 14.02.2014 passed by respondent no. 3 – Central Public Information Officer & Administrative Officer, Income Tax Settlement Commission, denying the information, which was earlier directed to be supplied to the petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The impugned order indicated that the order dated 26.09.2013 passed by PIO pursuant to an application filed by the petitioner under the RTI Act; and the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by FAA in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.09.2013, were set aside as being void ab-initio by the Chairman, IT settlement Commission as an administrative head of the Income Tax Settlement Commission.
The principal Controversy to be addressed is whether, respondent no. 1 could declare by an administrative order, the orders passed by respondent nos. 2 (PIO) & 4 (FAA ) as being void ab-initio.
The petitioner had filed RTI application seeking information, inter alia, with respect to disposal and pendency of matters before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. In response to this application, CPIO and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax Settlement Commission passed an order dated 26.9.2013 furnishing certain information to the petitioner. However, by the said order certain other information as sought for was denied. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The said appeal was partly allowed by an order dated 21.10.2013.
On response to the reminder letters to PIO by Mr. Jain, received the order from PIO in which he referred to an administrative order passed by the respondent no. 1; the extract of which as quoted in the impugned order reads as under:
“As there has been total no-compliance by the JDIT-II and DIT (Inv) of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and notification by the Chairman, ITSC, New Delhi order no. C-26016/1/05/SC-RTI /1178 dated 29/31-07-2013, the orders of even numbers dated 26.09.2013 and 21.10.2013 passed by the JDIT and DIT (Inv) are ab initio void and are annulled. The RTI application will be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and notification by the Chairman, ITSC, New Delhi order no. C-26016/1/05/SC-RTI /1178 dated 29/31-07-2013 by the Administrative Officer, (CPIO), ITSC, Principal Bench, New Delhi at the earliest.”
The Judge, Hon. Vibhu Bakhru then wrote:
“I am unable to accept that such orders passed in exercise of statutory powers could be declared as a nullity or void by an administrative order without recourse to the hierarchy of authorities as specified in the statute – the RTI Act. In the event, the respondent no. 1 was of the view that the orders passed by PIO & FAA were without authority of law, the proper and the only course would be to file an appeal before the Central Information Commission (hereafter the ‘CIC’) or any other competent judicial forum. However, the said orders could not be nullified by an administrative order”.
“The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that the present writ petition ought not to be entertained as the petitioner would have an alternative remedy to approach the CIC by way of a complaint u/s. 18(1) of the RTI Act”.
“Undoubtedly, the CIC would have the power to enquire into any complaint in respect of matters relating to access of information under the RTI Act. However, it is apparent, in the present, case that respondent no. 1 has acted without authority of law in nullifying orders passed under the RTI Act; thus, interference with the impugned order is warranted in these proceedings”.
The court then ruled:
“In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. However, it will also be open for the respondents to approach the CIC to assail the orders dated 26.09.2013 and 21.10.2013 passed by PIO & FAA . Needless to mention that if an appeal is filed before the CIC by the public authority (the Income Tax Settlement Commission); the same would be considered in accordance with law”.
[R. K. Jain vs. Chairman, Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors. in W.P. (C) 2939/2014, in HC of Delhi dated 05.12.2014]
Section 18 of the RTI Act :
The Complainant Raghubir Singh through his RTI application dated 25.09.2013 had sought for information on 2 Points, viz i) Which of the Government Secondary Schools in Delhi under the Directorate of Education, have introduced Punjabi teaching as a third language for the first time afresh in class VI in the academic year 2010- 2014; ii) the number of such students enrolled in Class VI, School-wise. The RTI application of the Complainant was returned to him stating that the Indian Postal Order (IPO) was not in order. Claiming non-furnishing of the information sought, the Complainant has approached the Commission u/s. 18 of RTI Act.
Both the parties made their submissions. The Complainant, Shri Raghubir Singh is a senior citizen of 75-years old and a law teacher who is associated with the making of the RTI Act before its enactment by the Government. The Commission heard him on the telephone as desired by him. He complained that the Directorate of Education had harassed him by raising meaningless technical issues. They returned the Indian Postal Order of Rs. 10/- saying that it is not properly drawn, when he claims to have rightly drawn in favour of the Accounts Officer. The Complainant objected to the returning of the Postal Order by PIO by speed post, for which he had to spend more than Rs. 25. He complained that the Directorate has not updated its web-site and appropriate against whom the Postal Order should be drawn or fee to be paid was not given.
The Commission then reproduced Full Bench Decision of CIC in S. C. Aggrawal vs. Ministry of Home Affairs dated 27.08.2013. Said decision is “a landmark”, very well written in the spirit of the RTI Act. I am posting it on BCAS website www.bcasoline.org and PCGT’s web www.rtiforyou.info . You may also go on CIC’s website to read it.
After the above, the Commission ruled:
The Commission directs the PIOs to check up whether every school has properly replied to the RTI application, if not fulfill the deficiencies. The Commission also directs them to contact the Complainant on the telephone number 011-23363510, given by him, and provide the complete information within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. ? T he Commission directs the respondents, their PIOs and in charge officers to immediately update their official website as desired by the Complainant and compliance report be sent to the Commission, with a copy to the Complainant, within ten days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission directs all the PIOs of Directorate of Education, all other officers concerned, to accept the IPO without raising technical objections and follow all the directions issued in the above referred full bench order of CIC. They should not spend any amount instead of encashing the IPO for Rs. 10 as prescribed-fee.
The Commission directs all the PIOs of Public Authority to submit separate reports to this Commission explaining how many IPOs they have rejected so far and what are the grounds of rejection, from January 2014 to December 10, 2014. Within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission directs all the PIOs of Public Authority to submit separate reports to this Commission explaining how many IPOs they have rejected so far and what are the grounds of rejection, from January 2014 to December 10, 2014. Within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission issues a show cause notice to PIO who refused and returned the IPO of appellant, why maximum penalty cannot be imposed against the spirit of RTI and harassing the applicant and for not updating the official website.
[Shri Raghubir Singh vs. Director of Education: CIC/ SA/C/2014/000038 dated 12.12.2014]
Notes:
I am happy to note that Mr. Raghubir Singh, senior citizen made this appeal to CIC. He was associated with the making of the RTI Act before its enactment. That put some more pressure on CIC to pass such favourable order. Same would improve the performance on matters related to RTI by Public Authorities. This judgement and the one referred to in this order need to be circulated widely.
Based on above decision, DOPT (www.persmin.gov.in ) has issued a circular dated 14.01.2015 on the subject “introduction of postal stamps as rti fee/cost – seeking comments from public regarding”. Comments were to be sent latest by 07.02.2015 through email only to Shri. R. K. Girdhar, under Secretary (RTI), at usrti-dopt@nic.in. this issue would reach the readers after that date. May be the date gets extended or DOPT may still accept late communication from you.
