ORDER :

Ajithkumar, J.

“When application made for information as provided under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act”) is rejected, either expressly or otherwise, the remedy available to the applicant is to file an appeal as provided under Section 19 of the RTI Act and that a further complaint under Section 18 to the State Information Commission is not maintainable.” This is the position of law expounded by this Court in the judgment dated 28.10.2014 in W.A.No180 of 2010. The 1st respondent in the Writ Appeal, State Information Commission took exception to that and filed this Review Petition invoking Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. As per order dated 22.8.2022, service of notice on respondents No.2 to 4 was dispensed with. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent.

3. In the judgment sought to be reviewed, the Division Bench held that the State Information Commission acted beyond its jurisdiction by issuing Ext.P1, whereby the 1st respondent was directed to take action on complaint dated 17.08.2007. That complaint was submitted by the requester alleging that the information sought by him was not furnished within the stipulated time. The Commission treated it as a complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act as could be seen from Ext.P1. The Division Bench in such circumstances held that when an application made for information as provided under section 6 of the RTI Act is rejected, either expressly or otherwise, the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to issue a direction under Section 18 of the RTI Act to furnish the information sought and the only remedy available to the requester is to file an appeal as provided under Section 19 of the RTI Act.

4. The Apex Court in Chief Information Commissioner and another v. State of Manipur and another [AIR 2012 SC 864] held that Sections 18 and 19 of the RTI Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other. The Apex Court further held that under Section 18 of the Act the Commission has power to impose a penalty as provided under Section 20 of the Act.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in B.N. Mohanadasan v. State Information Commission and others [W.A. No.2815 of 2009 dated 10.12.2009] considered the question whether the State Information Commission is empowered to impose penalty on an information officer under Section 18 of the Act if there is illegal denial of information or withholding of information, in cases where the requester did not invoke the appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act. The Division Bench held,-

“5. On a perusal of Section 20 of the Act wherein penalty is proposed to be imposed on a complaint or in an appeal indicate that irrespective of invoking the appeal provision, a party can approach and invoke jurisdiction of the State Commission on a complaint bringing it to the notice that there was illegal denial of information or withholding of information, as the case may be. As such, as it is open to the State Commission to impose penalty either on a complaint in this regard lodged invoking the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 18 of the Act or in an appeal filed before it under Section 19 of the Act, the present invoking of jurisdiction directly under Section 18 cannot be said to be either illegal or erroneous. In a given case, the aggrieved party may file appeal against the order of refusal, but it is always open for him to bring it to the notice of the State Commission the delaying tactics which is contrary to the objectives of the Act.”

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the view taken in the judgment sought to be reviewed that a requester who was denied an information is to file an appeal as provided under Section 19 of the RTI Act and he cannot prefer a further complaint under