The court emphasized the purpose of the Right to Information Act in providing access to information and held that the appointment of PIOs is necessary to ensure compliance with the Act.

ORDER :

The present writ petition has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, challenging the order dated 09.11.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by the State Information Commission, Madhya Pradesh.

2. The impugned order of the State Information Commission directs the State of Madhya Pradesh to appoint Public Information Officers in the Chief Minister’s Secretariat and in the office of the Chief Secretary of the State. The aforesaid direction has been passed in terms of section 19 (8) of the Right to Information Act 2005 (for short “Act”).

3. The learned counsel for the State raised a preliminary ground of attack on the order, that the order is ostensibly passed under section 19 (8) of the Act, and the said provision vests jurisdiction to pass such order only while hearing an appeal. In the present case, the respondent No.1 had simply submitted a complaint, and thus, the Commission could only have exercised jurisdiction under Section 18 and 20 of the Act, and not under Section 19 (8).

4. The issue of jurisdiction is taken up first. It is argued by the State that while hearing appeal, under section 19 (8), the Commission can exercise the following jurisdiction :-

(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to— (a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including— (i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form; (ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be; (iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information; (iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records; (v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials; (vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause(b) of sub-section (1) of section 4; (b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; (c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act; (d) reject the application.(emphasis supplied)

5. It is argued that the direction to appoint a Public Information Officer could be given only under section 19 (8), while hearing the appeal, and not otherwise. This was a case of the Commission hearing a complaint, and not an appeal. Thus, the direction is devoid of jurisdiction.

6. It is true that the Commission was hearing a complaint, and the reference to section 19 (8) seems to be erroneous. However, before setting aside the order on that ground only, it is to be seen whether the Commission otherwise has the jurisdiction or not, and that the provision has only been erroneously mentioned.

7. The Commission entertains complaints under section 18 and the section 20 provides for penalties as a result of findings of complaints. The argument of learned counsel for the State is that the Commission could only have passed order in terms of section 20 if it found that the State has not properly complied the provisions of the Act, and could not have passed an order to appoint the Public Information Officer, which power is there only in section 19 (8).

8. Sections 18 (a) and section 20 are relevant, which are as under :-

"18. Powers and functions of Information Commissions.—

(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 appl