IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Section 34(1) of the Right to Information Act No.12 of 2016 read with the Court of Appeal (Appellant Procedure Rules 1990)

Hewa Baddage Gunaratne, “Saman”, Udapanguwa, Lunugala.

Appellant-Petitioner Vs.

Court of Appeal Application No: CA/RTI/01/2020 Right to Information Commission, Room No. 203, 204 BMICH, RTIC Appeal No: 766/2018 Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo Respondent-Respondent BEFORE : D.N.Samarakoon J Neil Iddawala J COUNSEL : Mahinda Jayawardena with Champika Monarawila for the Petitioner.

Himali Kularatne with D.R.J. Ellepola for the Respondent.

Argued on : 04.04.2023 Written Submissions on : 14.06.2023 Decided on : 28.06.2023 Iddawala – J This is an appeal filed on 03.09.2020 and thereafter the amended petition was filed on 22.03.2021, under Section 34 (1) of the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the RTI Act) inter alia to set aside the order issued by the Right to Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as the RTI Commission) on 19.08.2019 and to order the issuance of information sought by the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant). The instant order by this Court is one of prominence as it deliberates the legality and veracity of solely naming the RTI Commission as a party to an appeal for a request of information under the RTI Act.

The background to this matter is as follows. The Appellant has worked as an assistant teacher of the Ministry of Education at Central College, Lunugala, Badulla and has retired on 24.10.2015.

On 13.01.2018 under S. 3 (1) of the RTI Act the Appellant has requested the Information Officer (IO) of Uva Province Department of Education (hereinafter Public Authority) to provide him information on his retirement and reimbursements of his payments under the Widows and Orphans Fund from 25.10.2015 -12.01.2018. He has requested the following documents;

1. Letters sent by the Appellant to the Uva Department of Education. 2. Letters sent by the Uva Department of Education to the Appellant.

3. Any other letters pertaining to this matter/ written to any other institutions.

Due to the absence of a response from the IO, an appeal has been made by the appellant to the Designated Officer (DO) of the Public Authority dated 07.02.2018 which was not responded.

Thereafter an appeal was made to the RTI Commission on 23.08.2018 under S. 32 of the RTI Act. The appellant was called for an inquiry on 01.04.2019 but as the Public Authority representative was absent it was not held. The appellant has then received a letter on 22.05.2019 from Deputy Director of Education (Administration) that the appellant can obtain necessary information from Passara Zonal Education. However, the appellant claims that this was a misleading direction as he had already obtained required documents from there on a previous application. After the hearing, the Commission has decided that as Provincial Office only receives letters of retirement, the documents requested by the appellant have to be obtained through Passara Zonal Education. Upon inquiry the Commission states in their order that the letter requested by the appellant has been duly sent on 06.06.2015 to the Zonal Education and the Provincial Office only receives the letter of retirement. Further, that the appellant has received responses for both the information requests, but with a delay and ordered necessary actions against the DO responsible for the delay and to provide the appellant, information on disciplinary inquiry within 2 weeks from the date of the order.

Thereafter, the Director of Public Authority has sent a letter dated 20.08.2019 to the Commission copying the appellant stating he has taken actions regarding the Commission’s order and stating that the necessary reports and annexure pertaining to it are attached. The appellant claims he never received such reports or annexure up to date. Upon informing t