Anant Singh Saini v. Mr. Parishit Saini and Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsels for the

Presence: Mr. Parishit Saini and Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsels for the appellant. Mr. K. N. Joshi, learned DAG for the State/respondent no.2. Mr. Dinesh Gahatori, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. I. P. Gairola, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Challenge in this Special Appeal is made to the judgment dated

18.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1411 of 2017, Anant Singh Saini Vs. Uttarakhand Information Commission and others, by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. Information was sent respondent no.1/Uttarakhand Information Commission (“the Commission”). It was served on dasti, but none appears for the Commission.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. The respondent no.3 did file a complaint against the petitioner before respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Haridwar (for short ‘DM’) on

13.06.2016, leveling various allegations against the petitioner. Subsequent to it, on 02.08.2016, the respondent no.3 moved an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking information to the effect that as to what action has been taken by the DM on complaint dated 13.06.2016 of the respondent no.3. When respondent no.3 did not receive any information, he made a complaint 2 under Section 18 of the Act before the Commission. On 08.05.2017, the Commission passed an order, directing the DM to get an inquiry conducted on the complaint of respondent no.3, by an Officer of Additional District Magistrate Rank, within a month and its result may be communicated to the Chief Education Officer and other concerned Officers. The direction further required the DM to send a compliance report to the Commission. It was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated

18.08.2017, observing that the matter is still pending before the Commission.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, under Section 18 of the Act, order for inquiry from some other person/officer may not be passed and directions for supplying information may also not be passed. He would submit that inquiry under Section 18 of the Act may be done so as to ascertain the reasons for granting information and the ultimate action may be taken under Section 20 of the Act. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another Vs. State of Manipur and Another, reported in (2011) 15 SCC 1.

6. In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted the provision of Section 18 of the Act and observed as follows:- “29. If we look at Section 18 of the Act it appears that the powers under Section 18 have been categorised under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1). Under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1) of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may receive and inquire into complaint of any person who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act [Section 18(1)(b)] or has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under the Act [Section 18(1)(e)] or has not been given a response to a request for information or access to 3 information within the time-limits specified under the Act [Section 18(1)(c)]. We are not concerned with the provision of Section 18(1)(a) or 18(1)(d) of the Act. Here we are concerned with the residuary provision under Section 18(1)(f) of the Act.

30. Under Section 18(3) of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, while inquiring into any matter in this section has the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit in respect of certain matters specified in Sections 18(3)(a) to (f). Under Section 18(4) which is a non obstante clause, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may examine any record to which the Act applies and which is under the control of the public authority and such records cannot be withheld from it on any ground.

31. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.

32. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.”

7. Learned State Counsel admits that the Commission cannot pass such order as has been passed on 08.05.2017, which was impugned in the writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 also very fairly concedes that the Commission has no jurisdiction to pass such order, as has been passed on 08.05.2017, which was impugned in the writ petition.

9. The scope of Section 18 of the Act has been discussed in the above judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has limited scope and, after such inquiry, an order of penalty may be passed under Section 20 of the Act. By the order dated 08.05.2017, what the Commission has done is that it had directed the DM to conduct an inquiry on the 4 complaint that was filed by the respondent no.3 against the appellant and supply its result to the Chief Education Officer and concerned Officers for further compliance. Such is not the scope of Section 18 of the Act. It is abundantly clear that the Commission has gone beyond the jurisdiction vested in it. The order dated 08.05.2017 is bad in the eyes of law, therefore, it deserves to be set aside and the appeal allowed.

10. The impugned judgment dated 18.08.2017 is set aside.

11. The appeal is allowed accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) 17.09.2025 (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

17.09.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf 4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F41875 5DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH