2018 Supreme(UK) 251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Secretary (Peyjal), Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun – Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commissioner & another – Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1843 of 2018
Decided On : 29-06-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Standing Counsel
The extent of the State Information Commissioner's powers under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the weight to be given to the Commissioner's directions.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Information Commissioner's Powers - Sections 18, 19, 20 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
Respondent no. 2 sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and after non-compliance, the State Information Commissioner directed an enquiry. The Secretary (Peyjal), Uttarakhand, filed a writ petition challenging the Commissioner's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that although the Act does not explicitly grant the State Information Commissioner the power to direct an enquiry, the Commissioner's direction should be considered as advice, and due weight must be given to it. However, the authority is not bound to follow the order.
Issues: The main issue was the extent of the State Information Commissioner's powers under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Commissioner's direction should be considered as advice, and due weight must be given to it, but the authority is not bound to follow the order.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands disposed, and the order of the Commission shall be read in the light of the court's observations.
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Respondent no. 2 sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the Public Information Officer of Peyjal Nigam, Dehradun Division, Rajendra Nagar vide application dated 04.08.2016. Since the information as sought by respondent no. 2 was not supplied to him, he filed the first appeal where the first appellate authority vide order dated 05.10.2016 directed the Public Information Officer to supply the information to respondent no. 2 within a period of one week. Even after the orders of the first appellate authority, the information was not supplied to the respondent no. 2 and, therefore, he preferred the second appeal before the State Information Commissioner. During the pendency of the second appeal, the State Information Commissioner vide order dated 13.09.2017 observed that the due process of tender has not been adopted and directed the Secretary, Peyjal Nigam, Dehradun to conduct an enquiry as to whether all the tenders were published, how many contractors participated in each tender process and how much money was released to each contractors for the construction work, etc. Thereafter, the State Information Commissioner vide its order dated 04.01.2018 disposed the matter imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) on the concerned Public Information Officer for not furnishing the information.
2. Present writ petition has been filed by the Secretary (Peyjal), Uttarakhand, Dehradun assailing the order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the State Information Commissioner on the ground that the State Information Commissioner has no power under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to issue a direction to him to conduct the enquiry.
3. The powers of the State Information Commissioner are given under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which read as under:-
“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 officer 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 initiate 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 d