Allowed

A Subramanyam Reddy v. the State Chief Information Commissioner

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Jul 2023WP/8267/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed against the State/Central Information Commissions returning complaints filed under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act on the ground that they were maintainable only as appeals under Section 19(1). The High Court held such return order unconstitutional.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned proceedings set aside; matter remanded to Information Commissioner to consider complaints with opportunity of hearing.

A Subramanyam Reddy Vs the State Chief… — RTI and Transparency | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

¶3

ifc
WB'

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE ifc

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATlM?/fr7'*

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 8267 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

A Subramanyam Reddy, S/o. Radha Krishna Reddy. Aged about 48 years Secreted, RTIPS Org., R/o.Plot No:184, gross, Keshavaylra Gunta, I irupathi, Tirupathi District, A.P. ’

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1. The State Chief Information Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Information Commission, I floor, D.No.241, MGM Capital, Near NRI Hospital Ghinnakakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A P ’

¶13

¶14

3. ChWoof’DijMrtTp®'’ Revenue Office, Chandragiri,

¶15

4. MandTclitooTS^^ 0/o.Mandal Revenue Office, Tirupathi Rural

¶16

The Public Information Officer. 0/o.District Collector, Chittoor District A P 7. 5ent%^eniL';!nS’ O/o Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps Gept-. Renigunta, Chittoor District, A.P.

¶17

®' “I’ZifJi" o'™?" Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps Dept., Avilala Panchayat, RC Road, Chittoor District, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS sggSssgsSs11-06-2022 and 25-07-2022 filed by the Petitioner U/sec.18(1) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 vide oroceedinas y *^°-®21YAPIC/GEN/2O22. dated 2QIQQI2Q22, Lr.No.9695/APIC/GEN/2022 11/10/2022, Lr.No.9694/APIC/GEN/2022, dated 11/10/2022 Lr.No.9697/APIC/GEN/2022. dated 18/10/2022, Lr.No.9696/APIC/GEN/2022,’

¶18

' dated 11/10/2022. Lr.No.12376/APIC/GEN/2022. dated 30/08/2022 and Lr.No.12375/APIC/GEN/2022, dated 30/08/2022 respectively, without disposing the said complaints basing on the merits of the case as highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of India and Section 18(1) of the Right to Information Act. 2005 and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 to dispose the Complaints dated 27-05-2022. 11-06-2022 and 25-07-2022 respectively filed by the Petitioner U/sec.18(1) of the Right to Information Act. 2005 in accordance with Section 18(1) of the Right to Information Act. 2005.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MOHANNAIR RAJEEV KUMAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 &2: SATEESH KUMAR EERLA (SC FOR AP STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION)

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7 &8: GP FOR REGISTRATIONS AND STAMPS

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO.8267 OF 2023

¶26

ORDER;

¶27

Article	The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following
relief:
	"to issue g WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or orders declare the action of Respondent No.l and 2 in returning the Complaints dated 27.05.2022,. 11.06.2022 and 25.07.2022 filed
	to proceedings by the Petitioner U/sec. 18(1) of the Right vide Information Act, 2005
	dated 26/09/2022, Lr.No.9211/APIC/GEN/2022,
	dated 11/10/2022, Lr.No. 9695/ APIC/ GEN/2022,
	dated 11/10/2022, Lr.No. 9694/ /PIC/ GEN/2022
	dated 18/10/2022, Lr.No. 9697/APIC/GEN/2022
	dated 11/10/2022, Lr. No.9696/APIC/ GEN/2022
	and Lr.No.l2376/ APIC/ GEN/2022 dated 30/08/2022 Lr.No.l2375/APIC/GEN/.2022 dated 30/08/2022 respectively, without disposing the said complaints basing on the merits of the case as highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution of India and Section 18(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and consequently direct the Respondent No.l and 2 to dispose the Complaints dated 27.05.2022, 11.06.2022 and 25.07.2022 respectively filed by the Petitioner U/sec 18(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005 in accordance with Section 18(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005 and to pass such other order or orders.....”
2.	Heard Sri Mohan Nair Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for

¶28

the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Registration St

¶29

Stamps, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and

¶30

Sri Sateesh Kumar Eerla, learned standing counsel for the

¶31

Andhra Pradesh State Informal^^Commission.

¶32

¶33

• •/*

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner made appUcations (8 in number) before respondent Nos.3 to 8 under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the ‘Act’). The said applications were not considered by the said authorities did not furnish the information even after lapse of 30 days. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner gave complaints under Section 18(1) of the Act before Second Appellate authority-respondent No.l. The said complaints were returned by respondent No.l stating that instead of filing appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, the petitioner has filed the said complaints under Section 18 (1) of the Act. He further contended that the petitioner need not file any appeal, however he can file an application before the appellate authority to take action under Section 18(1) of the Act and the authority has to deal with the said complaint and if comes to a conclusion that there is a mistake committed by Public Information officer under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, the authority can impose penalty under Section 20 of the Act. Without dealing in that way, the authority has returned the complaints solely on the ground that the petitioner has not filed appeal. As such, the order impugned is unsustainable, contrary to the provisions of

<br>

the Act.

■s.

On the other hand, Sri Sateesh Kumar Eerla, learned standing counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2, on counter, i submitted that, the petitioner, instead of filing appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, has filed compliant under Section 18 (1) of the Act. As such, the authority has rightly returned the petitioner’s complaints and there is no ground raised or urged before this Court warranting interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. In support of his contention. he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Chief

¶43

Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur^.

¶44

5. Perused the record. 6. The contention of the petitioner herein is that as the Public Information Officers have not considered the applications of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act, a complaint was given to the appellate authority under Section 18 (1) of the Act.

¶45

7. . Section 18(1) (c) of the Act reads as follows:

¶46

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 arty person,-

(a)

(b)

'(2011) 15 see 1

/nfnrmZr respoHse to a request for

¶52

A careful reading of the said provision, it shows that the authority concerned, if fails to give a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under Section 6 of the Act, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the caee me,, ------mission, as the case may be, satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter to initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.

¶53

Section 18(4) of the Act reads as follows:

¶54

/fc No^ithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act ofParliament or State Legislature, as the case may the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be. may. during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act. examine any record to y^>hich this Act applies which IS under the control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheldfrom it on any grounds.

¶55

A perusal of the said provision, the authority concerned during the inquiry of any complaint under the Act examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the control of the public authority and no such record may be withheld from it oh any grounds.

¶56

Section 20 of the Act refers to “Penalties’, which reads as

follows:

• 5

20. Penalties.—(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or, knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in famishing the information, it shall 16 impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving, that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. (2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is ofthe opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.

¶61

As per the said provision, in case the Public Information Officer, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information

¶62

' within time specified. the authority concerned can impose penalty.

¶63

¶64

In the present case, the petitioner intends to take action against the Public Information officers for not furnishing the information as envisaged under Section 7 of the Act. In such case, the petitioner has two options either by way of filing an appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Act or a complaint under section 18 (1) of the Act to enquire into the issue against the Public Information Officers and if it ultimately found that the Pubhc Information Officers have not acted in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, the appellate authority i.e., respondent No.l can take action against the said officers and impose penalty under Section 20 of the Act. 13. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that the appellate authority on one hand stated that the complaints filed under Section 18(1) seeking action against the officials, cannot be received and he has to file appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act and m the very same order, he has stated that for multiple complamts, he preferred a single complaint and he has to file separate complaints under Section 18(1) of the Act or appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act. The said observations are contradictory in nature. As such, the proceedings dated 26.09.2022, 11.10.2022. 11.10.2022, 18.10.2022. 30.08.2022 and 30.08.2022 are unsustainable.

.5
/
14.

The respondent No.l did not properly appreciate the issue involved in a right perspective in light of Section 18 of the Act and came to a conclusion that the petitioner has one and the only to file appeal before the concerned authority under Section 19 (1) of the Act. In the judgment relied on by the learned

¶70

counsel for the respondent in the case of Chief Information

¶71

Commissioner (1^ cited supra), it is held that:

¶72

"30. The nature of the power, under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statue, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provisions of Section 19 of the Act.”

¶73

The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the

¶74

present case.

¶75

In these circumstances, this Court finds that respondent No.l has not properly dealt with the compliant given by the petitioner and as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶76

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the

¶77

impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2022, 11.10.2022,

¶78

¶79

11.10.2022, 18.10.2022. 30.08.2022 and 30.08.2022 and the matter is remanded to respondent No.l. Respondent No.l is directed to once again consider the petitioner’s complaints in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶80

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if

¶81

any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

¶82

SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARIX ASSISTANT REGISTER

//TRUE COPY//

^SECTION OFFICER

To,

The State Chief Information Commissioner, Andhra Commission. I floor, D.No'2417’MG'M"CapitaL"NearNW Chinnakakani. Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶87