Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT [THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH]
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Sri Sonadhan Chakma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Writ Petition [C] No. 5132 of 2024
Decided on : 12-11-2024
(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 6, 18, 19, and 20 - Complaint regarding non-compliance of RTI requests - The petitioner alleged that the information provided was misleading and unrelated to his application - The Commission directed the Public Authority to furnish the requested information within a specified time frame, emphasizing the importance of compliance with RTI provisions. (Paras 1-42)
(B) Jurisdiction of Information Commission - The court clarified the distinct roles of Sections 18 and 19, asserting that the Commission must inquire into complaints under Section 18 after the exhaustion of remedies under Section 19. (Paras 12-41)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, belonging to the Chakma tribe, sought information regarding forest land allotment under the RTI Act but faced delays and misleading responses from the authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court emphasized the need for the Commission to act on complaints regarding misleading information and to ensure compliance with RTI provisions.
Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of the Information Commission and the adequacy of responses provided to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Information Commission has a duty to inquire into complaints under Section 18 and ensure compliance with RTI provisions.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the Commission.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extra ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending inaction on the part of the Assam Information Commission [‘the Commission’, for short] in the matter of taking cognizance of a Complaint, stated to have been filed by the petitioner before it on 21.05.2024.
2. The petitioner has claimed that he belongs to Chakma tribe, which has been recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the district of Karbi Anglong, Assam under the Constitution [Scheduled Tribes] Order, 1950 made in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause [1] of Article 342 of the Constitution of India. To substantiate such fact, the petitioner has annexed a Tribe Certificate issued in his favour by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong on 13.12.2017 as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
2.1. The petitioner has stated that in order to obtain information as regards allotment of forest lands under the provisions of the Land Policy framed by the Government of Assam and the Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers [Recognition of Forest Rights] Act, 2006 [‘the Act, 2006’, for short], he submitted an application on 22.12.2021 before the Chief Executive Member, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council [KAAC], Diphu seeking certain information. When the said application was not responded to, the petitioner submitted another application on 16.02.2022, as a reminder to the earlier one, before the same authority but the said application too was not responded.
2.2. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [‘the RTI Act’, for short] before the State Public Information Officer [SPIO], Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu on 06.10.2022 seeking the following information :-
2. When did said petitions placed in files before the Hon'ble Chief Executive Member, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, or in the meeting of the Executive Council of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, for appropriate action regarding prayer requested in the said petitions?
3. Supply clear photocopy of records of file noting, comment, note given in the process of examination of said petitions for appropriate action.
4. Were the said petitions referred or transferred to any other Departments, Branch, Public Authority for appropriate action? If yes, supply clear photocopy of the forwarding letters sent to any other Departments, Branch, Public Authority.
5. Any response, action taken report received in the office of the Chief Executive Member, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Karbi Anglong from any other Departments, Branch, Public Authority for appropriate action following the said petitions? If yes, supply clear photocopy of the response, action taken report received from any other Departments, Branch, Public Authority.
6. Supply clear photocopy of record of orders issued by the Govt. of Assam, Govt. of India received since 2010, in the office of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, regarding Allotment and Settlement of Forest land for the Scheduled Tribes [ST] villagers under the provisions of the land policy framed by the Govt. of Assam, and the Scheduled Tribes & Others Traditional Forest Dwellers [Recognition of Forest Rights] Act, 2006.
2.3. In the said application, the petitioner requested for information at the earliest and further stated that if the requested information were not available in the said Office then the application was to be transferred under Section 6 [3] of the RTI Act to the concerned State Public Information Officer [SPIO] with intimation to the applicant.
2.4. When the petitioner had neither received the information as sought for by him under the RTI Act nor received any reply from the SPIO of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous C
The Information Commission must inquire into complaints regarding misleading information under the RTI Act, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.
The imposition of penalty by the State Information Commissioner was held invalid due to lack of statutory authority and necessary procedural safeguards under the Right to Information Act.
The penalty imposed on a deemed Public Information Officer is improper if the designated officer is not notified or held accountable for delays in providing requested information.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory duty under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to provide information to the Information Seeker, the liability of the custodian of the....
The main legal point established is that a complainant under Section 18 of the RTI Act can file a statutory appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act if dissatisfied with the information provided, as per....
Judicial review is an integral part of the constitutional framework, and violations of natural justice in administrative actions are subject to review.
(1) There is clear distinction in between “Public Authority” within meaning of Section 2(h) and “Public Information Officer” within meaning of Section 2(m) of Right to Information Act, 2005.(2) Award....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
