IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
M.M.S. Bedi, J.
Rajesh Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Vs.
Chief Information Commissioner – Respondent
CWP No. 3024 of 2017
Decided On : 06-04-2017
Right to Information Act - Central Information Commissioner - Section 18
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Central Information Commissioner for not providing complete information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the order of the Central Information Commissioner, stating that the petitioner's excessive filing of RTI applications was unreasonable and did not serve the purpose of transparency and accountability.
Issues: Excessive filing of RTI applications, interpretation of Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the right to information should not be misused and that the Act should not be used to harass others without public interest. It also highlighted the need for certification of the bona fide of an applicant and the prohibition of supplying information under other laws.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
M.M.S. Bedi, J.
Through instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 13.10.2016, Annexure P-1, passed by the Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi claiming that prayer of the petitioner for providing complete and genuine information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and for launching an action against the officials of Oriental Bank of Commerce, has not been considered.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner himself who is present in the Court.
3. Unfortunately, the petitioner has been dismissed in December, 2014 while he was working as a Senior Manager in Amritsar Branch of the Oriental Bank of Commerce. It is not disputed that the petitioner has filed more than 200 RTI applications and over 250 complaints to the authorities in the capacity as a whistle blower so as to expose the corruption/irregularities in the same Bank from which Bank he has been dismissed. His writ petition against the dismissal order, is pending.
4. The contents of his 13 complaints which were brought to the notice of Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi, have been referred to in the order. It is not out of place to mention here that the Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi is a statutory body under Chapter V of Right to Information Act, 2005. The powers and functions of the Information Commissioner, have been enshrined in Section 18 of the said Act foisting a pious duty on the Central Information Commissioner to receive and inquire into a complaint submitted by any person. Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 reads as follows:
"18. Powers and functions of Information Commission.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,-
(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer, or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, either by reason that no such office has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or Senior Officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;
(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;
(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limits specified under this Act;
(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;
(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and
(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.
(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may intimate an inquiry in respect thereof.
(3) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;
(b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents'
(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;
(e) issuing summons for
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya and others
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.