Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2631
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
National Green Tribunal – Appellant
Versus
Alok Kumar Ghosh – Respondent
W.P.(C) 7611 of 2015 and CM APPL. 14775 of 2015
Decided On : 20-02-2023
Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
None, for the Respondent.
The court emphasized the importance of timely response to RTI applications and clarified the limitations on the CIC's authority to issue broad directions beyond the scope of the appeal.
Headnote:
RTI - Quashing of CIC order - Right to Information Act, 2005 - [Section 18, Section 19] - The court discussed the RTI Act, 2005, particularly Section 18 and Section 19, and highlighted the requirement for timely response to RTI applications, the power of the CIC to convert a second appeal into a complaint, and the limitations on the CIC's authority to issue broad directions beyond the scope of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) failed to respond to an RTI application, leading to a complaint filed with the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC directed the NGT to disclose information and issued broad directions, which were later stayed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The NGT was at fault for not responding to the RTI application, but the CIC's broad directions exceeded the scope of the appeal. The NGT has since established a proper RTI Cell and First Appellate Authority.
Issues: Failure to respond to RTI application, CIC's authority to convert appeal into complaint, and the scope of directions issued by the CIC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the NGT was at fault for not responding to the RTI application, the CIC's directions went beyond the scope of the appeal and were unsustainable.
Final Decision: The court set aside the broad directions issued by the CIC and directed the NGT to handle future RTI applications in accordance with the timelines and rules prescribed under the RTI Act and RTI Rules.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - National Green Tribunal (NGT) seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 8th July, 2015 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in file no. CIC/SA/C/2014/001610 titled Alok Kumar Ghosh v. PIO, NGT.
3. The RTI Applicant - Alok Kumar Ghosh who is the Respondent in the present case filed an RTI application dated 18th March, 2014 seeking disclosure of following information from the NGT:
"1. How many candidates appeared for the said post?
2. Marks obtained by me in the said examination?
3. What is my rank in the said examination?
4. What is my rank as an OBC reservation quota?
5. Name of the selected candidates and their marks respectively.
6. At present what numbers regular Group - D (MTS) employee engaged in your organization?
7. Is there any contractual employee engaged in your organization (including all Regional Benches) in the post of Group - D (MTS), if any, how many contractual Group - D (MTS) employees are there at present?"
4. No reply was received to the said RTI Application. Thereafter, first appeal was filed. However, the same also did not get any consideration by the Appellate authority at the NGT and the matter reached the CIC.
5. The CIC, treated the RTI Application as a second appeal and simultaneously considered the same as a complaint on the ground that the NGT failed to give any reply to the RTI Application.
6. The RTI Applicant/Respondent was not present before the CIC. However, vide the impugned order dated 8th July, 2015 the CIC noted that the ground on which the NGT failed to respond to the RTI Application was the non-payment of Rs.10/- as per the RTI Rules, 2012. The RTI Applicant/ Respondent had attached a court fee stamp of Rs.10/- instead of payment by cash, demand draft or electronic payment as required under the RTI Rules, 2012. The CIC vide the impugned order came to the conclusion that the NGT's stand was completely incorrect and it observed as under:
"6. If the appellant, as asked pays Rs 10 by IPO/DD, NGT would spend another Rs 50 to send back information. If appellant paid Rs 10, NGT's loss still remains Rs 40. If information is dispatched, cost will go up to Rs 100. Supposing appellant did not dispatch Rs 10 by postal order, the public authority has already lost Rs 50. Instead of all this spending CPIO should have sent the information sought. The learned council said if not the audit would object why money due to Government is not collected."
7. It was in this background that the CIC converted the matter into a complaint under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, "RTI Act") and went into the issue of the NGT's stand of defending the second appeal by engaging a legal counsel/advocate. The CIC, vide the impugned order came to the conclusion that the information asked for in the RTI Application is liable to be disclosed and directed as under:
"a) furnish point-wise information to the appellant along with certified copies of relevant documents, free of cost,
b) give a complete report on the process, criteria adopted to select D-MTS staff challenged by applicant considering his RTI application as complaint, with the reasons for rejecting candidates including appellant, marks obtained by candidates.
c) give details of expenditure incurred in dealing this RTI application up to the level of second appeal, including the cost of litigation, and
d) make it a policy to place all results of recruitment test or interview, minutes of committee selecting candidates for different posts, with, reasons for rejection, besides informing that to every candidate.
e) explain why public authority should not be directed to pay compensation which is equivalent to amount spent by public authority so far, fighting against him to deny."
8. Mr. Deshmukh, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that after the passing of the impugned order dated 8th J
