In a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a Right to Information appeal by the Goa State Information Commission, the High Court held that no jurisdictional error existed in the Commission's approach regarding the furnishing of non-existent information. The petition was dismissed.
The petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 254 OF 2020
AMOL SAWANT.,
….Petitioner.
Versus
THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER., ….Respondent.
Mr. Dhaval D. Zaveri, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.P. Munj, Additional Govt. Advocate for the Respondent.
Coram : M.S. Sonak, J.
Date : 15th June, 2021.
P.C. :
The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 18th
November, 2019, made by the Goa State Information Commission
(GSIC), dismissing the Petitioner's appeal against the order dated 31st
December, 2018 made by the First Appellate Authority under the
provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI).
2.Mr. Zaveri submits that though the First Appellate
Authority had partially allowed the Petitioner's appeal and had also
directed the PIO to furnish some information, till date such
information has not been furnished to the Petitioner. Mr. Zaveri
submits that in such circumstances, the Petitioner was entitled to
maintain a second appeal before the GSIC and the GSIC erred in
dismissing such an appeal not on the ground of maintainability, but
2
by observing that the information sought for by the Petitioner has
already been supplied to the Petitioner. Mr. Zaveri refers to the
provisions of Section 19 of the RTI to submit that there is
jurisdictional error in the approach of the GSIC.
3.Having perused the orders made by the various authorities
under the RTI, as well as the other material on record, it is not
possible to hold that the order of the GSIC suffers from any
jurisdictional error or is otherwise liable to be interfered with in
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
4.If the grievance of the Petitioner is about the non-
compliance with the order of the First Appellate Authority, there was
no question of challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority
rather than taking out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate
authorities to seek its enforcement. Otherwise, from the perusal of
the order of the First Appellate Authority, it is quite clear that
substantial reliefs have been granted to the Petitioner. Some of the
information applied for by the Petitioner was yet to come into
existence and, therefore, the authorities were quite right in expressing
their inability to furnish such information. There is no jurisdictional
error in the approach of the authorities under the RTI, so as to
warrant any interference in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution.
3
5.Accordingly, this Petition is liable to be dismissed and is,
hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
M.S. Sonak, J.
SANTOSH S MHAMAL Digitally signed by SANTOSH S MHAMAL Date: 2021.06.15 14:58:44 +05'30'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the State Information Commission dismissing the appeal in an exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227.
Whether the approach of the authorities took out to furnish non-existent information constitutes a jurisdictional error warranting interference by the High Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amol Sawant
Public Information Officer
M.S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court