ORDER :

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

Heard.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking for a declaration to declare Rule 5(1)(vii) and Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2012, [hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”] as ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. The constitutional validity of the above provisions is challenged primarily on three grounds.

(i) The impugned Rules are ultra vires the Parent Act, viz. Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”].

(ii). The Rule allows the authorities to pass orders without affording a personal hearing, which is violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also in contravention to Rules 7 and 8.

(iii). The limitation period of one year fixed under Rule 10 is beyond the rule making power under Section 27 of the Act and therefore, ultra vires.

4. At the outset, it is useful to refer to Sections 20 and 27 of the Act, which read as follows:-

“20. Penalties.—(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.”

“27. Power to make rules by appropriate Government.—(1)

The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—

(a) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4;

(b) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6;

(c) the fee payable under sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7;

(d) the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees under sub-section (6) of section 13 and sub-section (6) of section 16