Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vijaykumar Namdeo Kakade, filed a writ petition under the Right to Information Act, 2005, challenging two orders dated 25.07.2013 and 15.10.2013 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Maharashtra. The background is that on 05.10.2010, the Chief Information Commissioner had allowed the petitioner's appeal and directed the respondent institution (Godavari College of Engineering) to supply the information sought. The institution challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.11699 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court, which was pending until 02.08.2013. While that writ petition was pending, the petitioner approached the Chief Information Commissioner complaining of non-compliance with the 2010 order. Instead of awaiting the High Court's decision, the Chief Information Commissioner passed the impugned orders on 25.07.2013 and 15.10.2013, which effectively recalled the earlier order. The High Court held that it was improper for the Chief Information Commissioner to cancel or review the order of his predecessor when a challenge to that order was pending before the High Court. The court observed that the Commissioner is not expected to recall or review the order in such circumstances. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned orders and restored the order dated 05.10.2010, directing the institution to supply the information sought by the petitioner within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Recall of Order - Pending Proceedings - Chief Information Commissioner cannot recall or review an order passed by his predecessor when a writ petition challenging that order is pending before the High Court - The Commissioner is expected to await the outcome of the High Court proceedings and not pass orders that virtually cancel the earlier order (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chief Information Commissioner has the jurisdiction to recall or review an order passed by his predecessor when a writ petition challenging that order is pending before the High Court.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed the orders dated 25.07.2013 and 15.10.2013 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner and restored the order dated 05.10.2010. The respondent institution was directed to supply the information sought by the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Chief Information Commissioner cannot recall or review own order when challenge to that order is pending before High Court
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 19
- Jurisdiction of Information Commission
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (01) 166
Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2014
Mr. V.P. Patil for petitioner, Mr. S.N. Morampalle for respondent No.1, Mr. L.V. Sangit for respondent Nos.2 and 3
State of Maharashtra, The President Godavari Foundation, Godavari College of Engineering
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders of Chief Information Commissioner recalling earlier order directing supply of information under RTI Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of orders dated 25.07.2013 and 15.10.2013 passed by Chief Information Commissioner and restoration of earlier order dated 05.10.2010.
Filing Reason
Chief Information Commissioner passed orders recalling his predecessor's order while a writ petition challenging that order was pending before the High Court.
Previous Decisions
On 05.10.2010, Chief Information Commissioner allowed petitioner's appeal and directed institution to supply information. Institution filed WP No.11699/2010 which was pending till 02.08.2013. On 25.07.2013 and 15.10.2013, Chief Information Commissioner passed orders virtually recalling the 2010 order.
Issues
Whether the Chief Information Commissioner can recall or review an order passed by his predecessor when a writ petition challenging that order is pending before the High Court.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Chief Information Commissioner acted improperly by recalling the earlier order while the matter was sub judice before the High Court.
Respondents argued in support of the impugned orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The Chief Information Commissioner is not expected to recall or review an order passed by his predecessor when a challenge to that order is pending before the High Court. Doing so amounts to interference with the court's jurisdiction and is improper.
Judgment Excerpts
This Court holds that the Chief Information Commissioner is not expected to recall or review the order when any proceeding is pending in this Court in which there is challenge to the order itself made by the Chief Information Commissioner.
Procedural History
On 05.10.2010, Chief Information Commissioner allowed petitioner's appeal. Institution filed WP No.11699/2010 challenging that order, pending till 02.08.2013. Meanwhile, petitioner complained of non-compliance; on 25.07.2013 and 15.10.2013, Chief Information Commissioner passed orders recalling the 2010 order. Petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 12.02.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Information Act, 2005: Section 19
