IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Ashok Kumar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Punjab State Information Commission & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-20000, 20025 and 20043 -2023
Decided On : 12-09-2023
RTI Act - Right to Information - 2005 - The judgment discusses the orders passed by the State Information Commission in response to appeals filed under the RTI Act. The court found the orders to be cryptic and non-speaking, in violation of the law laid down by the court in previous cases. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the State Information Commission to consider the matter afresh and decide the applications/appeals after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also after considering the pleas raised by all the concerned parties by passing speaking orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed three applications under the RTI Act, and when the information sought was not supplied, appeals were filed before the State Information Commission. The Commission directed the respondent PIO to provide the sought information within a specified period, failing which penal action would be initiated. The petitioner approached the Commission within the specified period, but the applications were dismissed with a non-speaking endorsement 'no action required'.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the impugned orders to be cryptic and non-speaking, in violation of the law laid down by the court in previous cases. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the State Information Commission to consider the matter afresh and decide the applications/appeals after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also after considering the pleas raised by all the concerned parties by passing speaking orders.
Issues: Violation of the law laid down by the court in previous cases, non-speaking and cryptic orders by the State Information Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The State Information Commission, while acting as a quasi-judicial authority, was required to adjudicate the case after considering the facts of the case, pleas raised by both the parties, and was required to record reasons for rejecting the pleas of one party and accepting the pleas of the other party by passing a reasoned order. The order should have been self-explanatory and reasons given in the same should not have been rubber stamp reasons.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the State Information Commission to consider the matter afresh and decide the applications/appeals after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also after considering the pleas raised by all the concerned parties by passing speaking orders.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. - Present order would dispose of three writ petitions i.e., CWP- 20000-2023 titled as 'Ashok Kumar Vs. Punjab State Information Commission and others'; CWP-20025-2023 titled as 'Ashok Kumar Vs. Punjab State Information Commission and others'; and CWP-20043-2023 titled as 'Ashok Kumar Vs. Punjab State Information Commission and others'. Challenge in all the writ petitions is to the orders (Annexure P-6) passed in the three appeals filed by the petitioner before the State Information Commission, Punjab in the proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act')
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed three applications under the RTI Act and the said applications are annexed as Annexure P-1 with each of the three writ petitions. When the information sought was not supplied by the Public Information Officer, then, three separate appeals were filed by the petitioner before the first appellate authority. When the information was still not provided, three separate appeals i.e., Appeal No.4716-2022 (subject matter of CWP-20000-2023); Appeal No.4714-2022 (subject matter of CWP-20025-2023) and Appeal No.4715-2022 (subject matter of CWP-20043-2023) were filed by the petitioner. Two separate orders dated 06.03.2023 were passed by the State Information Commission in the Appeal No.4716-2022 and Appeal No.4715-2022 and the reading of the said orders would show that they are almost identical. The relevant portion of the order dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed in Appeal No.4716-2022 is reproduced herein below: -
'3. Respondent represented by Sh. Ashok Kumar stated that complete information pertaining to appeal case no. AC: 4713, 4714 and 4718 of 2022 has been provided to the appellant dated 27.02.2023 and nothing is pending in these aforesaid cases. For appeal case no. 4712, 4715,4716,4717 of 2022 he seeks some more time to furnish the sought information. In addition to this he further submitted the unconditional apologies for the delay in dealing this RTI application and assured the Commission that he will furnish a reply/information within 20 days.
4. In view of above the Commission directs the respondent PIO, to provide the sought information to the appellant within 30 days from issue of this order. Failing to which action under section 20 (1) of RTI act will be initiated against the PIO. Accordingly, on the assurance of respondent Sh. Ashok Kumar, this instant appeal case is Disposed of with directions to the respondent PIO . A Compliance report shall be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission by 10.04.2023. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action by the Commission.
However, the liberty is granted to the appellant to approach the Commission within 45 days in case any submission regarding the receiving of information.
NOTE for PIO: All documents / information supplied to appellants/complainants must mandatorily be attested as :Information supplied under the RTI Act, 2005, Signature of the PIO, Name of the PIO, Name of the Public Authority, Date.'
A perusal of the above order would show that with respect to Appeal No.4716 of 2022 and Appeal No.4715 of 2022, the respondent authorities had submitted that they would furnish the information sought and had apologized for the delay and thereafter, the State Information Commission had directed the respondent PIO to provide the information to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of issuance of the said order, failing which, action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act would be initiated against the PIO and liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Commission within 45 days in case any submission regarding the receiving of the information was to be addressed. In Appeal No.4714 of 2022, which is the subject matter of CWP-20025 of 2023, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Commission within 10 days from the issuance of the order in case
Quasi-judicial authorities must record reasons in support of their conclusions, and insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be d....
The State Information Commissioner must provide a reasoned order and ensure both parties are heard in RTI appeals, adhering to principles of natural justice.
Quasi-judicial authorities must provide clear, cogent reasons for their decisions to uphold principles of justice and ensure accountability.
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.