IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Special Appeal No.638 of 2017

Anant Singh Saini ….. Appellant

Vs.

Uttarakhand Information Commission and others ……Respondents

Presence:

Mr. Parishit Saini and Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsels for the appellant.

Mr. K. N. Joshi, learned DAG for the State/respondent no.2.

Mr. Dinesh Gahatori, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. I. P. Gairola, learned counsel for

respondent no.3.

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Challenge in this Special Appeal is made to the judgment dated

18.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1411 of 2017, Anant Singh Saini Vs. Uttarakhand Information Commission and others, by the

learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. Information was sent to respondent no.1/Uttarakhand Information Commission (“the Commission”). It was served on dasti, but

none appears for the Commission.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.

4. The respondent no.3 did file a complaint against the petitioner before respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Haridwar (for short ‘DM’) on 13.06.2016, leveling various allegations against the petitioner. Subsequent to it, on 02.08.2016, the respondent no.3 moved an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking information to the effect that as to what action has been taken by the DM on complaint dated 13.06.2016 of the respondent no.3. When respondent no.3 did not receive any information, he made a complaint

under Section 18 of the Act before the Commission. On 08.05.2017, the Commission passed an order, directing the DM to get an inquiry conducted on the complaint of respondent no.3, by an Officer of Additional District Magistrate Rank, within a month and its result may be communicated to the Chief Education Officer and other concerned Officers. The direction further required the DM to send a compliance report to the Commission. It was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 18.08.2017, observing that the matter is still pending before the Commission.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, under Section 18 of the Act, order for inquiry from some other person/officer may not be passed and directions for supplying information may also not be passed. He would submit that inquiry under Section 18 of the Act may be done so as to ascertain the reasons for granting information and the ultimate action may be taken under Section 20 of the Act. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another Vs. State of Manipur and Another, reported in (2011) 15 SCC 1.

6. In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted the provision of Section 18 of the Act and observed as follows:-

“29. If we look at Section 18 of the Act it appears that the powers under Section 18 have been categorised under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1). Under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1) of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may receive and inquire into complaint of any person who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act [Section 18(1)(b)] or has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under the Act [Section 18(1)(e)] or has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time-limits specified under the Act [Section 18(1)(c)]. We are not concerned with the provision of Section 18(1)(a) or 18(1)(d) of the Act. Here we are concerned with the residuary provision under Section 18(1)(f) of the Act.

30. Under Section 18(3) of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, while inquiring into any matter in this section has the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit in