Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Smt. Saania Sayed, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging an order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the Goa State Information Commission (the Second Appellate Authority) in an appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Petitioner had sought information from the State Public Information Officer (Respondent No. 1) under the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the response, she filed a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2), which was dismissed. She then filed a second appeal before the Goa State Information Commission (Respondent No. 3). The Commission, by its order dated 08.09.2021, dismissed the appeal and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Petitioner, without affording her any opportunity of hearing. The Petitioner contended that the Commission passed the order ex parte, without issuing any notice of hearing or giving her a chance to present her case. The High Court noted that the Respondents were duly served but none appeared. The Court examined the provisions of Section 19 of the RTI Act, which mandates that the Information Commission shall give the parties an opportunity of being heard before deciding the appeal. The Court held that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirement of hearing. Consequently, the Court quashed the order dated 08.09.2021 and remanded the matter back to the Goa State Information Commission for fresh consideration, after giving the Petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court also directed that the costs imposed be refunded to the Petitioner. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19 - Right to be heard - Natural Justice - Imposition of costs without hearing - The Goa State Information Commission dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 without giving her an opportunity of hearing. The High Court held that such an order violates the principles of natural justice and the mandatory requirement of Section 19 of the RTI Act, which requires the Commission to hear the parties before passing any order. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh hearing. (Paras 7-10) B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19 - Appellate Authority - Duty to hear - The High Court observed that the Information Commission, while exercising appellate powers under Section 19, must comply with the principles of natural justice. The order passed without hearing the Petitioner is a nullity and cannot be sustained. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Goa State Information Commission could impose costs on the Petitioner without affording her an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the Goa State Information Commission, and remanded the matter back to the Commission for fresh hearing after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The costs imposed were directed to be refunded.
Law Points
- Right to be heard
- Natural justice
- Audi alteram partem
- Section 19 of RTI Act
- 2005
- Imposition of costs without hearing
- Quashing of order
- Remand for fresh hearing
