Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dominic Gabriel Philip, sought information from St. John's High School, Nagpur (respondent no.2) under the Right to Information Act, 2005, by an application dated 04.05.2013. The school replied that it was not a public authority and thus not liable to supply information. The petitioner reiterated his request on 14.06.2013 and, upon non-compliance, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of the Act. On 30.08.2013, the First Appellate Authority directed the school to supply the information within seven days. The petitioner filed a further appeal under Section 19(2) on the ground that the information was still not furnished. On 15.01.2015, the Information Commission allowed the appeal and directed the school to show cause why action under Section 20, including penalty, should not be imposed for non-compliance. Since the order was not complied with, the petitioner filed a fresh complaint under Section 18(1)(e) of the Act. By the impugned order dated 19.10.2015, the State Information Commissioner held that the school was not liable to furnish the information as initially directed, effectively revoking the earlier direction. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The court framed the issue of whether the State Information Commission has jurisdiction to revoke its earlier direction while entertaining a complaint under Section 18(1)(e). The petitioner argued that the Commission cannot review its own orders as no power of review is conferred under the Act, and the proper remedy for non-compliance is to proceed under Section 20. The respondent school contended that the Commission could reconsider its earlier order. The court held that the Commission, while dealing with a complaint under Section 18(1)(e), cannot revoke or review its earlier direction to supply information, as the Act does not grant any power of review. The proper course for the Commission is to take action under Section 20 for non-compliance, including imposing penalty. The court quashed the impugned order dated 19.10.2015 and directed the Commission to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law, specifically considering action under Section 20 of the Act.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Review Powers - Section 18(1)(e) and Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - The State Information Commission, while entertaining a complaint under Section 18(1)(e) for non-supply of information, cannot revoke or review its earlier direction to supply information, as the Act does not confer any power of review on the Commission. The proper course is to take action under Section 20 for non-compliance, including imposition of penalty. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Information Commission has jurisdiction to revoke its earlier direction to supply information while entertaining a complaint under Section 18(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the State Information Commission is quashed. The Commission is directed to proceed with the complaint filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, specifically considering action under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for non-compliance of earlier directions.
Law Points
- State Information Commission cannot review or revoke its earlier directions in a complaint under Section 18(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act
- 2005
- as it has no power of review
- the remedy for non-compliance is to proceed under Section 20 of the Act for penalty or disciplinary action.
