CHIEF INFORMATION COMMR & Anr. v. STATE 507 OF MANIPUR initiated by the State Government during certain periods & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
D these directions both the appeals are disposed of
Provisions considered
- Right to Information Act, 2005 ss. 6, 18
- Constitution of India arts. 19(1)(a), 19(2), 21
Judgment
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMR. AND ANR. v. STATE 507 OF MANIPUR initiated by the State Government during certain periods. A As there was no response by the State Public Information Officer, the appellant filed two complaints u/ s 18 of the Act. The State Chief Information Commissioner, by orders dated 3.5.2009 and 14.8.2007, directed respondent No.2 to furnish the required B information within 15 days of the respective orders. The State challenged both the orders by filing writ petitions, which were dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court, inter-alia, upholding the orders of the Chief Information Commissioner. However, in the writ appeals, c the Division Bench of the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction, as u/s 18 of the Act, he was not empowered to pass a direction to the State Public Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant, and such a power was conferred u/s 19(8) of the Act on the basis of an exercise u/s 19 only. Aggrieved, the Chief Information Commissioner filed the appeals. 0 Disposing of the appeals, the Court E HELD: 1.1 The powers u/s 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 have been categorized under clauses (a) to (f) of s.18(1) whereunder the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may receive and inquire F into the complaint of any person who has been refused access to any information requested under the Act [s.18(1)(b)], or has been given incomplete, misleading or false information [s.18(1 )(e)], or has not been given a response to a request for information or access to G information within time limits specified under the Act [s.18(1)(c)]. [Para 29] [521-B-D]
1.2 In the facts of the instant case, the appellant after having applied for information u/s 6 and then not having received any reply thereto, it must be deemed that he has H 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A been refused the information. The said situation is covered by s.7 of the Act and the remedy to such a person who has been refused the information is provided by way of appeal uls 19 of the Act. A second appeal is also provided under sub-s.(3) of s.19. [Para 32-33] [522- B C-D-H]
1.3 The procedures contemplated uls 18 and s.19 of the Act are substantially different. The nature of the power uls 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure uls 19 is an appellate procedure and a person C who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure uls 19. [Para 35] [524-E] D
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: D these directions both the appeals are disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right to Information Act, 2005 — ss. 6, 18; Constitution of India — arts. 19(1)(a), 19(2), 21.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.